This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-326
entitled 'Native American Housing: Tribes Generally View Block Grant
Program as Effective, but Tracking of Infrastructure Plans and
Investments Needs Improvement' which was released on February 25, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
February 2010:
Native American Housing:
Tribes Generally View Block Grant Program as Effective, but Tracking
of Infrastructure Plans and Investments Needs Improvement:
GAO-10-326:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-326, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of
1996 (NAHASDA) changed how the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) provides housing assistance to Native Americans.
Congress created NAHASDA to recognize self-determination for tribes in
addressing their low-income housing needs. In NAHASDA’s 2008
reauthorization, Congress asked GAO to assess the program’s
effectiveness. This report discusses (1) how tribes have used NAHASDA
funds, (2) how NAHASDA has improved the process of providing tribes
with funds for housing, and (3) the extent to which NAHASDA has
contributed to infrastructure improvements in tribal communities. GAO
analyzed agency documentation, surveyed all tribes receiving grants in
fiscal year 2008, conducted site visits with select tribes, and
interviewed officials at HUD and other agencies.
What GAO Found:
Native American tribes have used NAHASDA block grant funds to develop
new housing and to provide other types of housing assistance to
eligible members (see figure below), but fewer small grantees have
developed new housing. Out of 359 grantees in fiscal year 2008, 102
received less than $250,000, with 22 of those reporting that they had
developed new housing over the life of their participation in the
program. Smaller grantees often provide tenant-based rental assistance
and other such services to members, but HUD neither tracks activities
that are not unit-based (units built, acquired, or rehabilitated) nor
reports those activities to Congress. However, HUD is revising its
reporting to track more activities, which should help efforts to
assess the impact of NAHASDA.
Figure: NAHASDA Grantee Replacing a Log Cabin Using Block Grant Funds:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Most grantees that we surveyed and interviewed view NAHASDA as
effective, largely because it emphasizes tribal self-determination.
Grantees feel the program has helped to improve housing conditions and
increase access to affordable housing, but they reported that
developing housing finance mechanisms and increasing economic
development remain as challenges.
Housing-related infrastructure development is an affordable housing
activity under NAHASDA, but HUD does not collect grantees’
infrastructure plans or measure their infrastructure investments.
Indian Health Service (IHS) data show an acute need for sanitation-
related infrastructure in Indian housing, and 85 percent of grantees
responding to our survey reported that developing infrastructure, such
as providing homes with access to drinking water, was a continuing
need. According to IHS officials, HUD can access IHS data on
sanitation deficiencies under a 2007 memorandum of understanding
between the agencies. HUD could use this data to track grantees’
efforts to address a key need in their communities and broaden the
scope of accomplishment data it reports to Congress. This data could
also help grantees identify any unmet sanitation needs they might
address with their NAHASDA grants.
What GAO Recommends:
To better assess program impact and help grantees identify their
infrastructure needs, GAO recommends that HUD (1) incorporate
reporting on infrastructure in its planned revisions for grantee
reporting on uses of block grant funds and (2) obtain IHS data on
housing-related infrastructure deficiencies on Indian lands. HUD
agreed with the report’s conclusions and recommendations.
View GAO-10-326 or key components. For more information, contact
William B. Shear at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
The IHBG Program Has Helped Tribes Address Some of Their Affordable
Housing Needs, but HUD and Tribes Reported That Small Grantees Face
Unique Challenges:
Survey Respondents and Tribes We Interviewed Generally Viewed NAHASDA
as Effective in Meeting Their Low-Income Housing Needs, but Some
Reported Challenges, Including Concerns with the Allocation Formula:
Almost Half of the Grantees We Surveyed Use IHBG Funds for
Infrastructure Development, but HUD Does Not Collect Grantees' Plans
or Monitor Their Investments in Housing-Related Infrastructure:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Survey Respondents' Suggestions for Smaller Tribes
Participating in NAHASDA:
Appendix III: Cherokee Freedmen:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Survey Respondents Reporting That They Provided Specific
Types of Housing Assistance Using IHBG Funds in Fiscal Years 2008 and
2009:
Table 2: Survey Respondents Reporting That They Used IHBG Funds to
Build New Units, by Fiscal Year 2008 Grant Size:
Table 3: NAHASDA Grantees' Use of Specific Funding Programs in
Combination with the IHBG Program Based on Survey Responses:
Table 4: Survey Respondents' Views on the Overall Effectiveness of
NAHASDA:
Table 5: Survey Respondents' Views on the Overall Effectiveness of
NAHASDA, by Fiscal Year 2008 Grant Size:
Table 6: Survey Respondents' Views on NAHASDA Compared with 1937 Act
Housing Programs:
Table 7: Most Frequent Suggestions on How NAHASDA Could be Improved:
Table 8: Survey Respondents' Suggestions on How the IHBG Allocation
Formula Could Be Improved:
Table 9: Survey Respondents' Use of Various Programs to Develop
Housing-Related Infrastructure:
Table 10: Location and Other Characteristics of NAHASDA Grantees
Selected for Site Visits and Telephone Interviews:
Table 11: Advice for Grantees Receiving Grants of Less Than $250,000
per Year:
Figures:
Figure 1: Funding for Indian Housing from Fiscal Year 1993 to 2009,
and NAHASDA's Legislative and Regulatory Changes:
Figure 2: Weighted Share of Seven Need Factors in the IHBG Formula:
Figure 3: Number of Homeownership and Rental Units Developed with IHBG
Funds, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008:
Figure 4: $1 Million Senior Apartment Community Built with $400,000 in
IHBG Funds (ONAP Alaska Region):
Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2008 IHBG Adjusted Grant Amounts:
Figure 6: Small Grantee Replacing a Log Cabin with a 400 to 500 Square
Foot Home Using $30,000 in IHBG Funds (ONAP Alaska Region):
Figure 7: Tribal Temporary Foster Care Facility and Public Safety
Building Funded through the ICDBG Program (ONAP Northwest Region):
Figure 8: Tribal Community Center Funded through Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit Programs (ONAP Northern Plains Region):
Figure 9: Example of Large Grantee Housing Project (ONAP Alaska
Region):
Figure 10: Percentage of Survey Respondents Reporting Specific
Challenges to Leveraging as Moderate to Very Great:
Figure 11: Grantees View NAHASDA as Most Effective at Improving
Housing Conditions for Low-Income Native Americans:
Figure 12: Housing-Related Infrastructure:
Figure 13: Survey Respondents' Rankings of Their Greatest Continuing
Housing Needs, by Percentage:
Figure 14: Survey Respondents' Use of the IHBG Program for
Infrastructure Development, by Fiscal Year 2008 Grant Size:
Figure 15: Survey Respondents' Views on Problems with NAHASDA Ranked
by Number of Responses:
Figure 16: Types of Infrastructure for Which Survey Respondents
Reported Using IHBG Funds:
Figure 17: Cherokee Freedmen History:
Abbreviations:
1937 Act: U.S. Housing Act of 1937:
AI/AN: American Indian and Alaska Native:
APR: Annual Performance Report:
BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
ICDBG: Indian Community Development Block Grant:
IHBG: Indian Housing Block Grant:
IHP: Indian Housing Plan:
IHS: Indian Health Service:
LIHTC: Low-Income Housing Tax Credit:
NAHASDA: Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act
of 1996:
NAIHC: National American Indian Housing Council:
ONAP: Office of Native American Programs:
TDHE: tribally designated housing entity:
Title VI: Title VI Loan Guarantee Program:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 25, 2010:
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Barney Frank:
Chairman:
The Honorable Spencer Bachus:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Financial Services:
House of Representatives:
In the United States, Native Americans disproportionately experience
socioeconomic challenges, including high unemployment and extreme
poverty, which impact housing conditions on Indian reservations and in
other Indian areas. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2008 that
Native Americans were almost twice as likely to live in poverty as the
rest of the population--27 percent compared with 15 percent. As a
result, overcrowding, substandard housing, and homelessness are far
more common in Native American communities; nearly 46 percent of
Native American households were overcrowded in 2008, a rate that was
almost three times as high as the rest of the country. The U.S.
government's relationship with Native American tribes has historically
been troubled, making it difficult to address the needs of low-income
Native Americans. Since 1961, the government has sought to address
Native Americans' need for more housing that is safe, decent, and
affordable by allowing them access to several housing programs
beginning with the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) and
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
[Footnote 1] In October 1996, Congress went a step further in creating
a housing program for Native Americans that recognized the tribes'
right to self-determination and self-governance. The Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA)
reorganized the system of housing assistance that HUD provided to
Native Americans by eliminating or incorporating several separate
programs Native Americans utilized into a single block grant program--
known as the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program--along with the
Title VI Loan Guarantee (Title VI) program to assist grantees with
private market financing.[Footnote 2] NAHASDA was first funded in
fiscal year 1998, and in November 1998 we reported on its
implementation.[Footnote 3] Today, more than 360 grantees servicing
approximately 555 tribes participate in NAHASDA's block grant program--
most grantees have participated since its inception--with the goal of
providing their members with adequate and affordable housing.
In the 2008 reauthorization of NAHASDA, you asked us to assess the
effectiveness of NAHASDA in achieving its purposes of meeting the
affordable housing needs of low-income Native American families. You
asked that we look at the program's effectiveness in meeting the needs
of tribes of various sizes, specifically with respect to smaller
tribes or those receiving lesser or minimum grant amounts. In this
report, we evaluate (1) how NAHASDA program funds have allowed Native
American tribes to address their affordable housing needs; (2) how, if
at all, NAHASDA has improved the process of providing Native American
tribes with access to federal funds to meet their affordable housing
needs; and (3) the extent to which NAHASDA funding has contributed to
infrastructure improvements in Native American communities.
In conducting this work, we reviewed NAHASDA's legislative history and
HUD's policies and procedures for administering the program. We also
reviewed previous congressional reports and testimonies, an Office of
Management and Budget report, our previous reports, and an independent
study of the program contracted by HUD. We obtained documents from HUD
related to NAHASDA grantee population and enrollment, grant amounts
awarded, and grantees' use of funds to pursue eligible affordable
housing activities. We determined that the data HUD provided to us
were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To obtain the
perspectives of Native American tribes and tribally designated housing
entities participating in NAHASDA, we conducted site visits with
grantees in four of HUD's six Office of Native American Programs
(ONAP) regions and conducted telephone interviews with grantees in the
two remaining regions, and we surveyed all tribes and tribally
designated housing entities that received a grant in fiscal year 2008,
obtaining a 66 percent response rate.[Footnote 4] For site visits and
telephone interviews, we selected 12 grantees (2 in each region) based
on such factors as 2008 population, enrollment, and grant size
relative to other regional grantees; housing activities reported to
HUD; and geographic location. We also met with officials from the
National American Indian Housing Council, a nonprofit housing advocacy
organization that represents American Indians, Alaska Natives, and
Native Hawaiians; and Cherokee Freedmen representatives who advocate
for housing and other benefits for the Cherokee Freedmen. We
interviewed officials in ONAP headquarters and in each regional ONAP
office. Finally, we interviewed officials at the Indian Health
Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and U.S. Department of Agriculture
Rural Development because those agencies also provide assistance to
Native American communities. Appendix I contains a more detailed
description of our scope and methodology. Appendix III contains a
brief history of the Cherokee Freedmen and information pertaining to
the Cherokee Nation's provision of housing assistance to Cherokee
Freedmen members.
We conducted this performance audit in Alaska; Arizona; California;
Colorado; Illinois; Michigan; Montana; Oklahoma; Utah; Washington;
Washington, D.C.; and Wisconsin from January 2009 to February 2010 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
NAHASDA authorized two HUD-administered programs--IHBG and Title VI--
that aim to provide affordable housing assistance to Native Americans
living on or near Indian tribal lands or areas, including assistance
for housing-related infrastructure.[Footnote 5] NAHASDA was first
funded in fiscal year 1998 and was most recently reauthorized in 2008.
[Side bar: Types of Indian Lands:
Federal Indian reservation: An area of land reserved for a tribe or
tribes under treaty or other agreement with the United States,
executive order, or federal statute or administrative action as
permanent tribal homelands, and where the federal government holds
title to the land in trust on behalf of the tribe.
Allotted lands: Remnants of reservations broken up during the federal
allotment period of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Starting
with the General Allotment Act in 1887 (also known as the Dawes Act)
until the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, allotments were conveyed
to members of affected tribes and held in trust by the federal
government. As allotments were taken out of trust, they became subject
to state and local taxation, which resulted in thousands of acres
passing out of Indian hands.
Restricted status or restricted fee land: Land title is held by an
individual Indian person or a tribe and can only be alienated or
encumbered by the owner with the approval of the Secretary of the
Interior because of limitations contained in the conveyance instrument
pursuant to federal law.
State Indian reservations: Lands held in trust by a state for an
Indian tribe. These lands are not subject to state property tax,
though they are subject to state law. End of side bar]
Prior to NAHASDA, Native Americans received assistance for affordable
housing under various programs aimed at providing housing assistance
to low-income families. For example, several of the programs were
authorized by the 1937 Act, including housing development and
modernization grants, operating subsidies, and Section 8 rental
assistance. Prior to NAHASDA, there were no specific provisions
relating to the unique circumstances of Native Americans living on or
near tribal lands, such as the federal government's obligations to
Native Americans through treaties and legislation, the relationships
between sovereign governments (federal and tribal) with different
laws, and the challenges with development on trust lands. When NAHASDA
was enacted in 1996, it incorporated the major programs that served
Native Americans into a single block grant program (the IHBG program).
[Footnote 6] NAHASDA also created the Title VI program.
The IHBG program is a formula grant program that provides funding for
affordable housing activities to Native American tribes or tribally
designated housing entities (TDHE).[Footnote 7] The purpose of the
Title VI program is to assist IHBG recipients that are unable to
obtain financing for eligible affordable housing activities without a
federal guarantee. Through the IHBG and Title VI programs, NAHASDA
aims to accomplish the following statutory objectives:
* assist and promote affordable housing activities to develop,
maintain, and operate affordable housing in safe and healthy
environments on Indian reservations and in other Indian areas for
occupancy by low-income Indian families;
* ensure better access to private mortgage markets for Indian tribes
and their members and promote self-sufficiency of Indian tribes and
their members;
* coordinate activities to provide housing for Indian tribes and their
members with federal, state, and local activities to further economic
and community development for Indian tribes and their members;
* plan for and integrate infrastructure resources with housing
development for Indian tribes; and:
* promote the development of private capital markets in Indian country
for the benefit of Indian communities.[Footnote 8]
NAHASDA, as described in the statute, is "[t]o provide federal
assistance for Indian tribes in a manner that recognizes the right of
tribal self-governance, and for other purposes." Under NAHASDA, tribes
practice self-governance or self-determination through (1) negotiated
rulemaking, (2) receiving funding directly rather than through Indian
Housing Authorities, and (3) determining the details of their housing
programs.[Footnote 9]
Negotiated rulemaking is the process whereby an agency considering
drafting a rule brings together representatives of that agency and
affected parties for negotiations, consistent with the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act of 1990. ONAP consults with tribes on various matters.
One important element of these discussions is negotiated rulemaking,
which allows Native Americans to participate in developing
regulations, including those pertaining to the IHBG allocation
formula. Before NAHASDA, HUD provided most of its assistance to Native
Americans through Indian Housing Authorities in the same manner as
public housing. With the enactment of NAHASDA, tribes may choose to
receive housing funds directly or they may designate a TDHE to
administer the housing program on their behalf. Tribes and TDHEs can
use IHBG funds for any eligible NAHASDA activity. Finally, under
NAHASDA, tribes are able to determine (1) whom they serve (for
example, giving preference to members of the participating tribe); (2)
what types of eligible activities they offer; and (3) how they deliver
their programs and projects.
[Side bar: Federally Recognized Tribes and Participation in NAHASDA:
According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), a federally
recognized tribe is an American Indian or Alaska Native tribal entity
that has a government-to-government relationship with the United
States and is eligible for BIA funding and services. Tribes may
receive federal recognition by an Act of Congress; by the
administrative procedures under 25 CFR, Part 83; or by the decisions
of a United States court. As of August 2009, there were 564 federally
recognized tribes. According to Department of Housing and Urban
Development officials, all tribes had to obtain federal recognition to
participate in the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) program, with the exception of
five state recognized tribes that participated in federal housing
programs under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. When NAHASDA was
implemented, those five tribes were grandfathered into the program.
End of side bar]
Entities eligible for NAHASDA programs are federally recognized Indian
tribes or their TDHEs and a limited number of state recognized tribes
that were funded under the 1937 Act. Families that are eligible for
NAHASDA-funded assistance are low-income Indian families--defined as
Indian families whose income does not exceed 80 percent of the area
median income--residing on a reservation or in an Indian
area.[Footnote 10] Further, NAHASDA requires that dwelling units be
occupied, owned, leased, purchased, or constructed by low-income
families and that the dwelling units remain affordable for the
remaining useful life of the property.[Footnote 11] According to HUD's
2009 IHBG formula allocation data, 282,111 American Indian and Alaska
Native (AI/AN) households residing in NAHASDA formula areas were low-
income.
Under NAHASDA, there are seven eligible activities:
1. Indian housing assistance, i.e. modernization or operating
assistance for 1937 Act units;
2. housing development, including the acquisition, new construction,
and reconstruction or rehabilitation of affordable housing;
3. housing services, including housing counseling and assistance to
owners, tenants, and contractors involved in eligible housing
activities;
4. housing management services for affordable housing, including loan
processing, inspections, and tenant selection;
5. crime prevention and safety;
6. model activities that provide creative approaches to solving
affordable housing problems; and:
7. reserve accounts for administrative and planning activities related
to affordable housing.
Under NAHASDA, grantees can use a range of approaches to provide
homeownership and rental assistance. These include providing:
* homeownership units for purchase or lease-purchase through new
construction, acquisition (for example, purchase of existing units),
rehabilitation, or acquisition and rehabilitation;
* rental units through new construction, acquisition (for example,
purchase of existing units), rehabilitation, or acquisition and
rehabilitation;
* rental units through conversion of existing structures or demolition
and replacement of existing structures;
* homeownership assistance through acquisition (for example,
downpayment or closing cost assistance to the homebuyer) or
acquisition and rehabilitation; and:
* tenant-based rental assistance (residents pay up to 30 percent of
their adjusted income).
Grantees also can leverage NAHASDA funds by combining them with funds
from other federal, state, local, and private sources to support
eligible program activities. According to HUD, leveraging was not
common under the 1937 Act.
Since the enactment of NAHASDA, several legislative and regulatory
changes have occurred (see figure 1). Those changes include the
creation of the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program in 2000
and the use of grant funds for housing-related community development
activities.[Footnote 12] Funding for the IHBG program has remained
steady. NAHASDA's first appropriation in fiscal year 1998 was $592
million, and average funding was approximately $633 million between
1998 and 2009. The highest level of funding was $691 million in 2002,
and the lowest was $577 million in 1999. For fiscal year 2009, the
program's appropriation was $621 million. However, when accounting for
inflation, constant dollars have generally decreased since the
enactment of NAHASDA. The highest level of funding in constant dollars
was $779 million in 1998, and the lowest was $621 million in 2009.
Amounts cited above and in figure 1 are for the IHBG program and
exclude NAHASDA set-asides such as technical assistance and Title VI
funding.
Figure 1: Funding for Indian Housing from Fiscal Year 1993 to 2009,
and NAHASDA's Legislative and Regulatory Changes:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar and line graph]
Fiscal year: 1993;
1973 Act Programs;
Actual Dollars: $537;
Constant 2009 dollars: $800.
Fiscal year: 1994;
1973 Act Programs;
Actual Dollars: $585;
Constant 2009 dollars: $849.
Fiscal year: 1995;
1973 Act Programs;
Actual Dollars: $593;
Constant 2009 dollars: $837.
Fiscal year: 1996;
1973 Act Programs;
Actual Dollars: $491;
Constant 2009 dollars: $675.
Fiscal year: 1997;
1973 Act Programs;
Actual Dollars: $562;
Constant 2009 dollars: $752.
Fiscal year: 1998;
NAHASDA regulations established: Regulations implementing NAHASDA were
written pursuant to the first negotiated rulemaking committee;
Actual Dollars: $592;
Constant 2009 dollars: $779.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Actual Dollars: $577;
Constant 2009 dollars: $745.
Fiscal year: 2000;
NAHASDA amendment passed: Public Law (P.L.) 106-568 made changes, such
as creating a parallel program to cover Native Hawaiians and allowing
for waivers of environmental reviews;
Actual Dollars: $617;
Constant 2009 dollars: $773.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Actual Dollars: $634;
Constant 2009 dollars: $769.
Fiscal year: 2002;
NAHASDA amendment passed: P.L. 107-292 made changes, such as allowing
for the usage of grants for housing-related community development;
Actual Dollars: $691;
Constant 2009 dollars: $826.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Actual Dollars: $659;
Constant 2009 dollars: $769.
Fiscal year: 2004;
NAHASDA amendment passed: P.L. 108-393 established a limited guarantee
level of 95% for the Title VI loan program;
Actual Dollars: $652;
Constant 2009 dollars: $744.
Fiscal year: 2005;
NAHASDA amendment passed: P.L. 109-58 made minor changes, such as the
addition of energy efficiency as part of a development activity;
Actual Dollars: $642;
Constant 2009 dollars: $709.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Actual Dollars: $606;
Constant 2009 dollars: $646.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Final rule published from formula negotiated rulemaking committee: The
rule made changes to the IHBG formula, such as addressing certain
definitions of formula areas and establishing a new minimum allocation
formula;
Actual Dollars: $641;
Constant 2009 dollars: $667.
Fiscal year: 2008;
NAHASDA reauthorization and amendments passed: P.L. 110-411 made
changes, such as establishing a demonstration loan guarantee program
for community development;
Actual Dollars: $667;
Constant 2009 dollars: $665.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Actual Dollars: $621;
Constant 2009 dollars: $621.
Source: GAO analysis of NAHASDA statute and regulations.
[End of figure]
ONAP, which administers NAHASDA, is part of HUD's Office of Public and
Indian Housing and administers the Indian Community Development Block
Grant and the Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee programs. ONAP's
headquarters in Washington, D.C. and its Denver office direct the
administration of the IHBG program on the national level, while six
regional offices administer grants on the local level.[Footnote 13]
Each regional office contains two divisions: Grants Management, which
provides funding, technical assistance, and project support to
grantees; and Grants Evaluation, which reviews grantees' performance
and initiates enforcement procedures when necessary.
NAHASDA changed HUD's role and involvement in Native American housing.
Prior to NAHASDA, HUD had greater involvement in the development of
housing projects while also managing multiple programs that served
Native Americans. Several of the programs were competitive, and HUD
reviewed and scored project proposals for those programs and awarded
grants to the highest-ranked projects, in addition to distributing
funds through the other noncompetitive (formula-based) programs. Under
the competitive programs, HUD had greater influence over how funds
were spent. Under NAHASDA, HUD plays a more administrative role in
delivering housing benefits to Native Americans, providing funding
through a single, tribally negotiated grant allocation formula. HUD's
role is (1) to provide grants, loan guarantees, and technical
assistance to Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages for the
development and operation of low-income housing in Indian areas; (2)
to conduct oversight by ensuring that reporting requirements are met
and by monitoring grant recipients onsite; and (3) to enforce remedies
for noncompliant grant recipients.
Prior to NAHASDA, HUD distributed grants from multiple programs to 217
Indian Housing Authorities. Under NAHASDA, in fiscal year 2008, 535
tribes benefited from more than 350 IHBG grants. The amount of funding
is based on an allocation formula that has two components: (1) the
costs of operating and modernizing pre-NAHASDA HUD-funded units and
(2) the need for providing affordable housing activities. Need is
calculated based on seven different factors that include the grantee's
AI/AN population and the number of households within that population
that fall in certain low-income categories (see figure 2). Allocation
amounts are adjusted by local area costs for construction and rents.
Because population impacts all need factors in the grant allocation,
larger grantees (larger tribes operating their own housing programs or
the TDHEs representing those tribes) receive larger grants.
Additionally, grantees that own and operate pre-NAHASDA units receive
both portions of the grant while those without the pre-NAHASDA units
receive only the need portion. Since their inception, NAHASDA's
regulations have included a provision for minimum funding. Tribes
whose annual need allocation was less than $50,000 in their first year
of participation or less than $25,000 in subsequent years have
received minimum funding in those amounts (the allocation is to the
tribe, although the grantee might be a separate entity operating the
housing program). The minimum funding allocation was revised for
fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 14] In fiscal year 2008, individual grants
ranged from the minimum to more than $70 million.
[Side bar: HUD’s Use of AI/AN Data in Allocating NAHASDA Grants:
The American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population data that the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) currently uses to
determine annual Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) allocations is
based on 2000 U.S. Census data as adjusted by Indian Health Service
data on AI/AN births and deaths. The Census data used are for all
AI/AN households within a tribe’s formula (geographic) area, and the
Census attempts to count all housing units and all persons residing in
those units. HUD has procedures for a tribe’s formula area to be
corrected and for a tribe to challenge its population or household
data. If tribes meet specific conditions, HUD also will use tribal
enrollment data in lieu of population data to determine IHBG
allocations. In some cases, the population data for a tribe’s formula
area is greater than its enrollment. In general, for those cases, HUD
does not allow population data to exceed twice the tribe’s enrollment.
End of side bar]
Figure 2: Weighted Share of Seven Need Factors in the IHBG Formula:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Households that are in overcrowded units or lack plumbing or kitchen
facilities: 25%;
Households with housing costs that exceed 50 percent of income: 22%;
Number of low-income households in excess of available housing: 15%;
Extremely low-income households: 13%;
Population (American Indians and Alaska Natives): 11%;
Low-income households: 7%;
Very low-income households: 7%.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
According to the data HUD uses annually for the IHBG formula
allocation, each of the need factors has increased from 1999 to 2009.
For example, during this period, the number of AI/AN households living
in overcrowded units and units lacking kitchen facilities increased by
almost 10 percent, and the number of AI/AN households with housing
expenses greater than 50 percent of their income increased by 43
percent. In order to receive their grant distribution, grantees must
submit an Indian Housing Plan (IHP) for each program year. In the IHP,
grantees identify their affordable housing needs and describe the
housing activities they plan to pursue to address those needs. At the
end of the program year, grantees also must submit an Annual
Performance Report (APR) that outlines actual accomplishments and, if
federal fiscal year expenditures are $500,000 or more, the results of
an independent audit. HUD is modifying its reporting process and plans
to implement a combined IHP and APR with several revisions in fiscal
year 2011. In addition to reporting, grantees must follow requirements
for environmental reviews, procurement and labor standards, family
eligibility, and accounting for program income.
As part of its oversight, HUD also conducts periodic onsite monitoring
visits with grantees using a risk-based approach to select which
grantees it will visit each year. Risk factors include grant size and
the amount of time since a grantee's last visit. In fiscal year 2009,
ONAP completed 60 onsite monitoring visits with NAHASDA grantees
nationwide. Additionally, HUD has enforcement procedures for grantees
found to be noncompliant with program requirements. Enforcement
procedures involve issuing (1) a letter of warning, (2) a notice of
intent to impose remedies if there is continued noncompliance, and (3)
imposition of remedies, which includes the option of a hearing before
a hearing officer. Enforcement can be discontinued at any time if the
grantee corrects the violation prior to the imposition of remedies.
The IHBG Program Has Helped Tribes Address Some of Their Affordable
Housing Needs, but HUD and Tribes Reported That Small Grantees Face
Unique Challenges:
Native American tribes receiving NAHASDA grants have used the funds to
develop new housing and to provide other types of housing assistance.
However, fewer small grantees, which receive lesser grants, have
developed new housing with NAHASDA funds compared to those receiving
larger grants, even though it is the primary federal housing program
for Native Americans. Many NAHASDA grantees, including those receiving
lesser grants, reported providing tenant-based rental assistance,
housing counseling, and downpayment assistance. Smaller grantees--
those receiving less than $250,000 annually--often focus on providing
those services. The APR that HUD currently uses to track the use of
grant funds does not collect data on activities that are not unit-
based (directly involving housing units built, acquired, or
rehabilitated). However, HUD is revising its reporting to track more
activities. Both HUD and grantees agreed that the opportunity to
leverage grant funds to secure funds from other sources allows
grantees to better address their affordable housing needs. However, a
lack of administrative capacity and other challenges limit additional
funding opportunities for some grantees.
Tribes Have Used IHBG Funds to Build, Acquire, and Rehabilitate
Affordable Housing and to Provide Other Types of Housing Assistance:
In recent years, Native American tribes and TDHEs receiving IHBG funds
under NAHASDA have used the funds to build, acquire, and rehabilitate
affordable housing units and to provide other types of housing
assistance, such as tenant-based rental assistance, housing
counseling, and downpayment assistance to eligible tribal members.
During fiscal years 2003 through 2008, NAHASDA grantees collectively
used IHBG funds to build 8,130 homeownership and 5,011 rental units;
acquire 3,811 homeownership and 800 rental units; and rehabilitate
27,422 homeownership and 5,289 rental units (see figure 3).
Figure 3: Number of Homeownership and Rental Units Developed with IHBG
Funds, Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 2003;
Homeownership units built: 2,010;
Homeownership units acquired: 880;
Homeownership units rehabilitated: 7,157;
Rental units built: 1195;
Rental units acquired: 226;
Rental units rehabilitated: 1,064.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Homeownership units built: 1,192;
Homeownership units acquired: 465;
Homeownership units rehabilitated: 3,647;
Rental units built: 927;
Rental units acquired: 147;
Rental units rehabilitated: 1,127.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Homeownership units built: 1,157;
Homeownership units acquired: 258;
Homeownership units rehabilitated: 6,203;
Rental units built: 647;
Rental units acquired: 130;
Rental units rehabilitated: 827.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Homeownership units built: 1,194;
Homeownership units acquired: 798;
Homeownership units rehabilitated: 4,442;
Rental units built: 863;
Rental units acquired: 154;
Rental units rehabilitated: 779.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Homeownership units built: 1,548;
Homeownership units acquired: 608;
Homeownership units rehabilitated: 3,041;
Rental units built: 579;
Rental units acquired: 95;
Rental units rehabilitated: 567.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Homeownership units built: 1,029;
Homeownership units acquired: 802;
Homeownership units rehabilitated: 2,932;
Rental units built: 800;
Rental units acquired: 48;
Rental units rehabilitated: 925.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
[End of figure]
HUD tracks the number of units that grantees build, acquire, and
rehabilitate using IHBG funds each fiscal year through the grantees'
APR. Grantees use the APR, which serves as a self-assessment document,
to report on their use of grant funds at the end of each program year.
[Footnote 15] The APR also follows the Indian Housing Plan (IHP),
which grantees submit to HUD each program year to describe their
affordable housing needs and how they will use grant funds to address
those needs.
Between 2003 and 2008, grantees developed more homeownership units
than rental units with IHBG funds. For example, the number of
homeownership units built was more than one and one-half times the
number of rental units built; the number of homeownership units
acquired was almost five times the number of rental units acquired;
and the number of homeownership units rehabilitated was more than five
times the number of rental units rehabilitated. National American
Indian Housing Council board members that also serve as executive
directors for tribal housing entities nationwide told us that while
large-scale rental housing is often needed, such properties are very
expensive to maintain over time.[Footnote 16] They said that, as a
result, the associated costs provide a disincentive for tribes to
develop this type of housing. For example, the housing director of one
small grantee we visited showed us the tribe's new senior apartment
community, which was funded in part by NAHASDA (see figure 4). During
our visit, the director explained that he spends much of his own time
carrying out maintenance services at the facility.
Figure 4: $1 Million Senior Apartment Community Built with $400,000 in
IHBG Funds (ONAP Alaska Region):
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Among NAHASDA grantees, during fiscal years 2003 through 2008, the
most common development activity was rehabilitation of existing units,
particularly homeownership units. In each fiscal year, the number of
homeownership units rehabilitated was substantially greater than the
number of homeownership units built or acquired. Grantees can use IHBG
funds to rehabilitate units owned by the tribe or TDHE or units owned
by private entities that will be occupied by eligible members, or they
can provide the funds to eligible homeowners for rehabilitation.
In addition to these unit-based activities, many grantees, including
several of those we interviewed, have used IHBG funds to provide
tenant-based rental assistance, housing or financial literacy
counseling, and downpayment assistance to eligible individuals and
families. Based on the results of our survey of all grantees for 2008,
in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, approximately 50 percent of grantees
used IHBG funds to provide tenant-based rental assistance; more than
50 percent used IHBG funds to provide housing or financial literacy
counseling; and approximately 30 percent used IHBG funds to provide
downpayment assistance (see table 1).
Table 1: Survey Respondents Reporting That They Provided Specific
Types of Housing Assistance Using IHBG Funds in Fiscal Years 2008 and
2009:
Type of assistance: Tenant-based rental assistance;
Fiscal year 2008: 52 percent (112/217);
Fiscal year 2009: 49 percent (104/214).
Type of assistance: Housing or financial literacy counseling;
Fiscal year 2008: 63 percent (136/217);
Fiscal year 2009: 54 percent (114/211).
Type of assistance: Downpayment assistance;
Fiscal year 2008: 36 percent (74/206);
Fiscal year 2009: 28 percent (57/204).
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
Note: The number of grantees providing a response for each type of
assistance varied. A total of 232 grantees responded to our survey.
[End of table]
Grantees that have housing stock developed with 1937 Act program
funds, or pre-NAHASDA housing stock, also can use IHBG funds to
provide modernization and operating assistance for those housing
units. In fiscal year 2008, HUD allocated IHBG funds to support
modernization or operation of 57,523 pre-NAHASDA units that grantees
collectively maintained in their housing inventories.[Footnote 17] HUD
also tracks modernization or operation of pre-NAHASDA units in the APR.
HUD and Tribes Reported That Small Grantees Face Challenges in
Developing New Housing:
HUD and tribes we interviewed and surveyed reported that small
grantees, which receive lesser grants, face particular challenges in
building new housing units with IHBG funds. The minimum grant amount
in fiscal year 2008 was $48,660 ($49,715 for fiscal year 2009). For
the purposes of our review, we generally considered annual grants less
than $250,000 to be lesser grants and the grantees receiving those
grants to be small grantees. In fiscal year 2008, 102 out of 359
grantees received grants of less than $250,000 to maintain existing
housing, develop new housing, and pursue other eligible activities
under NAHASDA (see figure 5).
Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2008 IHBG Adjusted Grant Amounts:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
$1 million or more (N=140): 39%;
$500,000 to less than $1 million (N=52): 14%;
$250,000 to less than $500,000 (N=65): 18%;
$50,000 to less than $250,000 (N=78): 22%;
Less than $50,000 (N=24): 7%.
Total = 359 Grantees.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Note: The 359 grantees are tribes or TDHEs that represent one or more
tribes. Individual tribes receive an allocation; however, the grantee
receives the total distribution of funds. Under umbrella TDHEs that
represent more than one tribe, some smaller grant amounts may be
combined. Adjusted grant amounts include backfunding to grantees or
repayments to HUD, as applicable.
[End of figure]
Out of 227 grantees providing a survey response to whether they had
built new housing units using any IHBG funds since participating in
NAHASDA, 159 (70 percent) indicated that they had built at least one
unit (see table 2). Of the 22 small grantees in this group (those
receiving less than $250,000 in fiscal year 2008), the average number
of units was considerably small. The three grantees receiving less
than $50,000 built an average of four units over the life of their
participation in the program, compared with an average 12 units for
the 19 grantees that received between $50,000 and $250,000 in 2008.
The larger grantees have built the majority of units. The 22 grantees
that responded to this survey question and received $1 million or more
in fiscal year 2008 built, on average, almost 450 housing units each.
Table 2: Survey Respondents Reporting That They Used IHBG Funds to
Build New Units, by Fiscal Year 2008 Grant Size:
Grant size: Less than $50,000;
Number of grantees: 3;
Average number of units: 4.33.
Grant size: $50,000 to less than $250,000;
Number of grantees: 19;
Average number of units: 12.32.
Grant size: $250,000 to less than $500,000;
Number of grantees: 58;
Average number of units: 20.12.
Grant size: $500,000 to less than $1 million;
Number of grantees: 57;
Average number of units: 48.67.
Grant size: $1 million or more;
Number of grantees: 22;
Average number of units: 447.59.
Grant size: Total;
Number of grantees: 159.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
Note: Unit averages are for units built with any IHBG funds over the
life of grantees' participation in the program. A total of 232
grantees responded to our survey and 227 responded to this question.
Of those 227, 68 reported not building any units with IHBG funds.
[End of table]
Among the 12 grantees we interviewed, 4 received less than $250,000 in
2008, and only 1 of the 4 received more than that amount in any of its
prior years in the program. Of those 4 grantees, only 1 had developed
new housing with IHBG funds. During our visit, the housing director
showed us a 10-home development that was completed in 2006 with IHBG
and other funding, including funding from another HUD program.
Although the grantee completed its first IHBG-funded development in
2006, it has participated in NAHASDA since the program's inception in
fiscal year 1998. One other small grantee we interviewed also had
developed new housing, but not with IHBG funds. During our visit with
the second grantee, the tribal administrator explained that the
grantee's newest units were funded with 1937 Act funds it received
from HUD just before NAHASDA's implementation. That grantee also has
participated in NAHASDA since its inception.
Development of new housing can be difficult for smaller grantees
receiving lesser grants. ONAP officials and several grantees we
interviewed stated that new housing development with lesser grants or
minimum funding can take place only if the funds are accumulated over
several years or if development is done in phases or on a smaller
scale (see figure 6). In many cases, new development is possible for
those grantees only if IHBG funds are leveraged (combined with funds
from other sources), a process which can involve additional
challenges, which we will discuss later in this report.
Figure 6: Small Grantee Replacing a Log Cabin with a 400 to 500 Square
Foot Home Using $30,000 in IHBG Funds (ONAP Alaska Region):
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
[End of figure]
In our survey, we asked all respondents to suggest best practices or
effective strategies for grantees receiving less than $250,000 in
annual IHBG funds. Similar to what ONAP officials and the grantees we
interviewed said, many survey respondents suggested that grantees
receiving lesser grants pursue phased housing development, leveraging,
and small-scale development. Additionally, several respondents
suggested that the following actions can be helpful:
* pool their resources (grant funds, staff, and expertise) with other
small grantees, such as under an umbrella TDHE or informally, and
rotate new development among grantees;
* minimize administrative expenses (for example, by limiting staff to
those that have experience with housing programs or in grant writing)
or work with consultants;
* focus on small projects critical to the community, such as housing
rehabilitation or home maintenance, or on providing only rental
assistance and downpayment assistance; and:
* network with and seek technical assistance from other tribes, agency
officials, or NAIHC.
Further details on survey respondents' suggestions for grantees
receiving less than $250,000 annually are discussed in Appendix II.
The Annual Performance Report Does Not Collect Data on Several
Significant Eligible Housing Activities, but HUD Expects Revisions to
Help Efforts to Assess the Impact of NAHASDA on Low-Income Native
Americans:
The APR that HUD uses to collect data on grantees' use of IHBG funds
does not track several significant activities because HUD currently
tracks only unit-based activities in the APR. Grantees report on the
number of units they build, acquire, and rehabilitate as well as on
the number of pre-NAHASDA units they operate and modernize using IHBG
funds. However, they are not required to report on the number of
individuals or households that receive tenant-based rental assistance,
housing counseling, or downpayment assistance. Grantees can include
this type of information as narrative in the APR, but HUD does not
track it. As a result, it is not included in HUD's annual report to
Congress on program accomplishments for NAHASDA. Since HUD currently
does not track and report IHBG-funded activities that are not unit-
based, smaller grantees that receive lesser grants and either have not
developed new housing or have done so over several years also have not
been able to adequately demonstrate their use of IHBG funds. Those
grantees often focus on providing members with services such as rental
and downpayment assistance.
In addition to limitations in the information it captures, the current
APR is a multiyear report that requires grantees to report on multiple
fiscal years when prior year funds remain unspent. At present, a grant
remains open across fiscal years until the funds from that grant are
fully expended. Both ONAP officials and officials for two grantees we
interviewed stated that multiyear reporting can be confusing and can
reduce the accuracy of the data being reported. For example, ONAP
headquarters officials explained that some grants used to fund
construction have remained open for several years concurrently.
According to the officials, this confuses grantees' reporting on use
of funds as well as HUD's administrative process.
ONAP has begun revising the APR and plans to implement the revised
format in fiscal year 2011. The revised APR is expected to be a single-
year report, which should eliminate multiyear reporting
inconsistencies. Additionally, HUD's planned revisions should allow
grantees to report on activities beyond housing units built, acquired,
and rehabilitated and demonstrate greater impact relative to those
units--for example, the number of students or elderly households
assisted, or the number of individuals moved into housing from
homelessness or substandard housing conditions. The new format also
will expand general reporting categories because HUD plans to track
tenant-based rental assistance, downpayment and closing-cost
assistance, and homebuyer lending subsidies. Finally, the IHP and APR
will be a combined document, which HUD believes will further simplify
reporting. Measures that address a full range of activities should
help tribes receiving lesser grants to better demonstrate how and to
what extent NAHASDA funds are helping them meet their affordable
housing needs. Additionally, a more complete set of program measures
should help HUD and Congress better assess the extent of NAHASDA's
impact on low-income Native Americans and whether the program is a
significant improvement over the programs it replaced.
HUD and Tribes Agreed that Leveraging Their IHBG Funds with Funds from
Other Sources Allows Grantees to Better Address Their Affordable
Housing Needs:
HUD and tribes participating in NAHASDA agreed that the opportunity to
leverage IHBG funds with funds from other sources, a key component of
NAHASDA, allows grantees to better address their affordable housing
needs. HUD officials told us that the opportunity to leverage IHBG
funds to support affordable housing activities is a significant
benefit for tribes participating in NAHASDA, and a positive change for
Native American housing since leveraging was not common under 1937 Act
programs. Moreover, an official in one regional ONAP office described
leveraging as a core concept of NAHASDA. While leveraging HUD funds
was allowed prior to NAHASDA, two separate regional officials
explained that leveraging still had been a relatively new concept for
HUD and tribes since the public housing structure under which tribes
previously received assistance did not encourage leveraging. NAHASDA
requires that grantees explain how grant funds will allow them to
leverage additional resources in their annual IHP.
As part of self-determination, grantees prioritize how they use grant
funds to address a variety of housing needs that qualify as eligible
NAHASDA activities. With regard to leveraging IHBG funds, ONAP
officials in one region stated that none of the grantees in that
region was so successful or received so large a grant that it did not
need additional support to address its housing needs. In several
regional offices, the officials told us that they provide resources to
assist grantees with leveraging. Some offices had a staff member who
was dedicated to helping grantees identify leveraging opportunities
and providing them with technical assistance. However, one regional
official noted that regional staff members do not assist grantees with
completing applications for funding.
Half of the grantees we interviewed and 48 percent (100/209) of survey
respondents answering a question on the role leveraging plays in their
ability to fund affordable housing development and activities said
that it plays a great or very great role. Many of the grantees
participating in leveraging activities explained that IHBG funding
alone is insufficient to adequately address their communities'
affordable housing needs. The housing director of one large grantee we
visited told us that, instead of using IHBG funds independently to
support housing activities, he focused on leveraging the funds to
obtain additional support. He said he viewed NAHASDA as opening up the
opportunity for tribes to use as many resources as possible to fund
their housing needs. The housing director of a second large grantee we
visited explained that nearly all of the grantee's 70-plus IHBG-funded
units had been built with a combination of funds from the IHBG program
and other sources. A third housing director provided us with records
showing that, since NAHASDA's inception in 1998, the grantee had
leveraged its IHBG funds to secure additional funding for housing
development at an almost one-to-one ratio. Survey respondents
leveraging their IHBG funds provided similar comments. They stated
that leveraging is necessary either to fully fund a development
project; to pursue both development and rehabilitation; to build
multiple housing units; or to generally address their communities'
affordable housing needs. Some respondents offered examples of how
combined funding from the IHBG program and other sources allowed them
to address specific housing needs, including funding a new housing
rehabilitation program for members, purchasing units to address
overcrowding and homelessness, and providing homebuyer assistance.
Based on our interviews with NAHASDA grantees and on survey responses
grantees provided, we found that grantees generally use the Indian
Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) program and the Section 184
Indian Home Loan Guarantee program in combination with the IHBG
program to fund affordable housing activities. Both the ICDBG and
Section 184 are HUD programs. Some grantees also use programs provided
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development, and
some larger grantees use the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program
(see table 3).
Table 3: NAHASDA Grantees' Use of Specific Funding Programs in
Combination with the IHBG Program Based on Survey Responses:
Program and agency: Title VI Loan Guarantee Program; HUD;
Description: Authorized by NAHASDA in 1996 and enables HUD to provide
a 95 percent loan guarantee to private lenders or investors that make
loans to NAHASDA grantees to develop housing and community facilities.
The Title VI loan is secured by a tribe's or tribally designated
housing entity's pledge of its current and future IHBG funds;
Respondent participation (percentage and number): 17 percent (33/199).
Program and agency: Indian Community Development Block Grant Program
(ICDBG); HUD;
Description: Authorized by Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended, and assists eligible grantees
with developing viable communities, mainly by funding housing and
economic development activities principally for persons of low-and
moderate-income. Program regulations provide for two types of grants,
single purpose and imminent threat. Single purpose grants are awarded
competitively within ONAP regions.[A] Eligible applicants are
federally recognized Indian tribes, Alaska Native villages, Village
and Regional Corporations established under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act, and certain other tribal organizations;
Respondent participation (percentage and number): 70 percent (153/218).
Program and agency: Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee Program;
HUD;
Description: Authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1992 and designed to offer homeownership and housing rehabilitation
opportunities to eligible Native Americans on trust or restricted
lands. The program provides a 100 percent federal guarantee to private
lenders for home loans made to federally recognized tribes or their
members and tribally designated housing entities;
Respondent participation (percentage and number): 58 percent (124/214).
Program and agency: Section 502 Single-Family Housing Direct Loan
Program; USDA;
Description: Authorized by the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, to
provide very low-and low-income individuals or families in rural areas
with loans to finance the purchase or construction of a home at an
affordable interest rate. Applicants may obtain 100 percent financing;
Respondent participation (percentage and number): 18 percent (35/191).
Program and agency: Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loan Program;
USDA;
Description: Authorized by the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, to
provide loans to any individual, corporation, association, trust,
Indian tribe, public or private nonprofit organization, consumer
cooperative, or partnership to provide rental or cooperative housing
and related facilities in rural areas for very low-, low-, or moderate-
income persons or families, including elderly persons and persons with
disabilities;
Respondent participation (percentage and number): 10 percent (19/190).
Program and agency: Rural Community Development Initiative Grant
Program (RCDI); USDA;
Description: Created in 2000 to develop the capacity and ability of
nonprofit organizations, low-income rural communities, or federally
recognized tribes to undertake projects related to housing, community
facilities, or community and economic development in rural areas.
Eligible applicants are qualified private, nonprofit (including faith-
based and community), and public (including tribal) intermediary
organizations that provide financial and technical assistance programs
to multiple recipients;
Respondent participation (percentage and number): 12 percent (21/178).
Program and agency: Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC);
IRS;
Description: Created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Under the program,
state and local agencies are authorized to issue federal tax credits
for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of affordable
rental housing. To qualify for credit, a project must have a specific
proportion of its units set aside for lower income households and the
rents on those units are limited to a maximum of 30 percent of
qualifying income. The amount of the credit is based on several
factors, including the development cost and the proportion of units
that is set aside. Credits are provided for a period of 10 years.
State and local agencies that issue LIHTC awards distribute the funds
competitively and according to a qualified allocation plan;
Respondent participation (percentage and number): 25 percent (51/205).
Source: GAO analysis of HUD, USDA, and GAO's NAHASDA survey data.
Note: The number of grantees providing a response for each program
varied. A total of 232 grantees responded to our survey.
[A] The ICDBG single purpose grant is awarded based on five rating
factors, including (1) capacity of the applicant, (2) need or extent
of the problem, and (3) leveraging resources. Imminent threat funds
may be made available to alleviate or remove imminent threats to
health or safety. The funds are awarded only if ONAP determines that
certain regulatory requirements are met.
[End of table]
Of the 12 grantees we interviewed, 8 told us that either the TDHE or
the tribe itself had received competitively awarded grants through the
ICDBG program and used those grants to fund a variety of projects. In
addition to housing development, the projects included providing water
and sewer systems; community buildings, such as a foster care facility
and public safety building; flood protection for homes; and small
business incubators (see figure 7). Among survey respondents,
participation in the ICDBG program in individual ONAP regions was
between 60 and 95 percent, with the highest participation rate in the
Northern Plains region, followed by the Northwest region.[Footnote 18]
Five of the 12 grantees we interviewed said they had used the Section
184 loan program, and two others said they would consider the program
in future leveraging efforts. Among survey respondents, participation
in the Section 184 loan program in individual ONAP regions was more
varied, from 39 to 85 percent, with the highest participation rate in
the Northern Plains region, followed closely by the Northwest region.
[Footnote 19]
Figure 7: Tribal Temporary Foster Care Facility and Public Safety
Building Funded through the ICDBG Program (ONAP Northwest Region):
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs]
Temporary foster care facility:
Public safety building:
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Although USDA's Rural Development provides low-income housing
assistance through several programs for which Native American tribes
or their members are eligible, few NAHASDA grantees use the three USDA
programs we asked about in our survey. Several grantees we interviewed
said they participated in at least one USDA program in combination
with the IHBG program; however, overall numbers from our survey show
that only 10 percent of grantees reported using USDA's Section 515
program (Rural Rental Housing) and 18 percent reported using the
Section 502 program (Single-Family Housing). USDA Rural Development
officials told us they were surprised the figures were so low,
especially given that Native American areas (along with the
Mississippi Delta, Appalachia, and the Colonias on the Mexican border)
are among the primary areas they target in order to serve some of the
poorest and worst housed groups in the nation. They also said that
they have set-asides under the Section 515 program for new
construction on tribal lands. Several of the grantees we interviewed
told us that they had little or no interaction with USDA local field
office officials, and when they did, it was usually at their tribe's
initiative. For example, one small grantee's housing director said
that he was aware that some USDA programs might benefit his tribe, but
that he had not had any contact with officials at the local USDA
office, even though the office is about one hour away. USDA also told
us that they are currently developing a more targeted outreach
strategy that identifies tribal housing authorities as critical
intermediaries and partners in raising the visibility of USDA Rural
Development's programs in Indian country.
Some larger grantees also use Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
programs in combination with the IHBG program to fund affordable
housing activities (see figs. 8 and 9). For each ONAP region, we
interviewed two grantees whose population and grant size varied
widely. As such, of the 12 grantees we interviewed, we make references
to the "six smaller" or "six larger" grantees. Five of the six larger
grantees we interviewed said that they currently use or had used LIHTC
programs. Similarly, 96 percent of survey respondents who said they
participate in LIHTC programs received grants of at least $250,000 in
fiscal year 2008.
Figure 8: Tribal Community Center Funded through Low-Income Housing
Tax Credit Programs (ONAP Northern Plains Region):
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Figure 9: Example of Large Grantee Housing Project (ONAP Alaska
Region):
[Refer to PDF for image: 4 photographs]
Large grantee purchased homes (top photos) and used IHBG, low-income
housing tax credit programs, and other funding to replace them with
new affordable homes (bottom photos).
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Lack of Administrative Capacity and Other Challenges Limit Additional
Funding Opportunities for Some Grantees:
According to HUD officials and the grantees we interviewed, some
grantees are limited in their ability to seek additional funds,
including those that (1) have limited administrative resources, which
prevents them from participating in a variety of programs; (2) are too
small to qualify for LIHTC programs, which may require the development
of a minimum number of housing units to serve a significant proportion
of the low-income population; and (3) undergo frequent administrative
turnover. Additionally, though most of the grantees agreed that
leveraging their IHBG funds by combining them with funds from other
sources is beneficial, most grantees participating in multiple
programs were larger grantees. And, among the 48 percent of survey
respondents indicating that leveraging plays a great or very great
role in their ability to fund affordable housing and related
activities, 81 percent received at least $250,000 in IHBG funds in
2008. Of the respondents indicating that leveraging plays some,
little, or no role in funding affordable housing, 66 percent reported
having 5 or fewer persons on their housing staff (staff that manage,
administer, and prepare grants or reports for the grantee's housing
program).
All six of the smaller grantees we interviewed said they lacked some
aspect of administrative capacity (such as housing staff resources,
expertise, and time), which limits or prevents their participation in
other programs or their ability to compete for non-NAHASDA funds.
Three of the six smaller grantees had not applied for funding from
other federal agencies, and three had not applied for or had
experienced challenges applying for the ICDBG program, though ICDBG
participation is high among grantees overall. Two of the six grantees
also had not applied for the competitive portion of NAHASDA stimulus
funds due to time constraints or to not having a grant writer to
prepare a competitive proposal.[Footnote 20] Grantees we interviewed
and those responding to our survey also reported that burdensome
administrative requirements impact their ability to participate in
NAHASDA and other housing programs (see figure 10). The grants planner
for one small grantee we visited said his tribe declined the IHBG
grant one year because it determined the grant amount would not
justify the effort and cost of participating in the program. The
housing director of another small grantee explained that while
leveraging offers the ability to stretch dollars, without enough
funding to pay for the necessary staff resources, it is very difficult
to take on the extra burden of making different funding sources work
together.
Figure 10: Percentage of Survey Respondents Reporting Specific
Challenges to Leveraging as Moderate to Very Great:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Limited capacity due to resources: 75%;
Burdensome administrative requirements from funding sources: 74%;
Incompatibility among different funding programs: 68%;
Lack of coordination between agencies providing funding: 68%;
Limited interest from financial institutions: 61%;
Exclusion from some programs due to size: 51%.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
Note: The number of grantees providing a response for each leveraging
challenge varied.
[End of figure]
As noted, five of the six larger grantees we interviewed indicated
they had participated in LIHTC programs. However, none of the smaller
grantees we interviewed indicated that they had participated in LIHTC
programs, and two explained that such programs would require more
resources than were available to them. For example, the housing
director of one of the smaller grantees said that they had considered
participating in a LIHTC program, but found they could not undertake
the required scale of development. HUD data supports this assessment.
According to HUD, of 16,754 LIHTC projects placed into service between
1995 and 2006, only about 17 percent of the projects had 20 or fewer
units.[Footnote 21]
Limited resources mainly impact smaller grantees that receive lesser
grants, but grantees of any size may experience frequent turnover in
housing and management staff that affect the continuity of housing
plans and activities. One housing director explained that frequent
turnover in housing management and staff can contribute to a lack of
knowledge of implementing housing programs and lack of consistency in
the grantee's housing plan.
Incompatibility among different funding programs was cited by 68
percent of survey respondents as a challenge to leveraging. Some other
funding programs may be incompatible with the IHBG program due to
conflicting requirements, such as requirements for eligible
beneficiaries. In addition, 68 percent of survey respondents
identified lack of coordination between agencies providing funding as
a leveraging challenge. Several grantees we interviewed reported that
a lack of coordination between HUD and other funding agencies limits
their efforts to combine IHBG funds with funds from those other
agencies. For example, the grantees explained that, like HUD, various
agencies require grantees to complete environmental reviews when they
receive funds to develop housing and related infrastructure. However,
they said that HUD generally does not accept environmental reviews
that meet other agencies' requirements, making it necessary for them
to have multiple reviews carried out.
Officials from NAIHC and three grantees we interviewed also reported
that limited interest from financial institutions is an ongoing
challenge for tribal entities in obtaining financing for housing
development. They said that many banks are reluctant to do business
with tribes because of cumbersome procedures or lack of experience.
For example, they explained that the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA)
process for issuing land title or trust status reports when a mortgage
is made on trust lands is lengthy and inefficient. Several grantees
explained that BIA's process for issuing this paperwork can take
months or years, making such transactions impractical for lenders and
difficult for members pursuing homeownership or receiving
homeownership assistance. In 1998 we reported that from 1992 through
1996, lenders made only 91 conventional home purchase loans to Native
Americans on trust lands (80 of which went to members of only two
tribes), largely because lenders have a limited understanding of land
ownership, jurisdiction, and legal issues pertaining to Native
American trust lands.[Footnote 22]
A more recent source notes that while federal programs and other
efforts subsequently encouraged greater lending to Native Americans on
trust lands, challenges remain. Both the Section 184 and NAHASDA's
Title VI loan guarantee programs aim to provide an incentive for
private lenders to make housing loans to tribes and their members.
[Footnote 23] In comparison with the Section 184 program,
participation in Title VI was low among grantees we interviewed and
those responding to our survey. Two of the 12 grantees we interviewed
and 17 percent (33/199) of survey respondents said they had
participated in Title VI. Data we received from ONAP on both loan
programs support what we found on Section 184 and Title VI
participation. In fiscal year 2008, HUD provided guarantees for 1,577
Section 184 loans totaling $274.8 million compared with only 8 Title
VI loans totaling $14.2 million. And, in fiscal year 2009, HUD
provided guarantees for 2,401 Section 184 loans totaling $395.4
million compared with only 6 Title VI loans totaling $12.8 million.
However, Title VI is a newer loan program and it offers lenders a 95
percent federal guarantee, compared with the Section 184 program's 100
percent guarantee. Some individual grantees also have made efforts to
facilitate lending in their communities. For example, one grantee we
met with had an agreement with BIA to do title permitting onsite in
order to expedite the title process for Section 184 program loans, and
two other grantees we interviewed had established their own banks.
Survey Respondents and Tribes We Interviewed Generally Viewed NAHASDA
as Effective in Meeting Their Low-Income Housing Needs, but Some
Reported Challenges, Including Concerns with the Allocation Formula:
Grantees responding to our survey and those we interviewed generally
viewed NAHASDA as an effective affordable housing program and as an
improvement over the programs it replaced. A primary reason was that
NAHASDA emphasizes tribal self-determination, which is the right to
use grant funds with minimal restrictions to meet tribes' self-
identified housing needs. Survey respondents reported that they view
NAHASDA as most effective at providing homeownership opportunities and
improving housing conditions for low-income Native Americans. However,
some grantees we spoke with and some responding to our survey had
specific concerns about NAHASDA, such as problems with meeting what
they considered to be onerous regulatory requirements and perceived
inequities in the grant allocation formula. Negotiated rulemaking
between HUD and tribes participating in NAHASDA provides the tribes
with an opportunity to address their concerns with NAHASDA's
regulations, including concerns pertaining to the grant allocation
formula.
Tribes View NAHASDA as Effective at Addressing Their Affordable
Housing Needs and as an Improvement over the HUD Programs It Replaced:
Based on our survey of and interviews with NAHASDA grantees, most
grantees view NAHASDA as an effective low-income housing program, and
a primary reason was NAHASDA's recognition of tribal self-
determination. Of the 223 survey respondents that provided views on
NAHASDA's effectiveness, almost 90 percent (200 grantees) reported
that the program has had a positive effect in helping them to meet
their affordable housing needs (see table 4). Of those 200 grantees,
more than half (110 grantees) reported that NAHASDA has had a very
positive effect. Similarly, 8 of the 12 grantees we interviewed told
us that NAHASDA has simplified the process of providing housing
benefits for their tribes. However, 5 of the 8 grantees who said that
NAHASDA has simplified the process of accessing affordable housing
benefits also mentioned some cumbersome aspects to the program, such
as the reporting requirements.
Table 4: Survey Respondents' Views on the Overall Effectiveness of
NAHASDA:
Very positive;
Number of responses: 110;
Percentage of those that answered the question: 49.3.
Generally positive;
Number of responses: 90;
Percentage of those that answered the question: 40.4.
Neither positive or negative;
Number of responses: 15;
Percentage of those that answered the question: 6.7.
Generally negative;
Number of responses: 7;
Percentage of those that answered the question: 3.1.
Very negative;
Number of responses: 1;
Percentage of those that answered the question: 0.4.
Total;
Number of responses: 223;
Percentage of those that answered the question: 100.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
Note: Results shown exclude seven responses of "don't know or no
opinion" and two "not checked" responses.
[End of table]
Among survey respondents, there were some minor differences in the
results across grantees receiving grants of various sizes. Of the 47
survey respondents that provided views on NAHASDA's effectiveness and
that received a grant less than $250,000 in fiscal year 2008, 46 had a
generally positive or very positive view of NAHASDA's effectiveness
(see table 5). In contrast with this consistently positive view of
NAHASDA among respondents that received lesser grants, eight grantees
that received more than $250,000 reported negative views on NAHASDA's
effectiveness. Our analysis of survey respondents' written
explanations shows that some grantees preferred the 1937 Act housing
programs because they were able to successfully compete for funds.
Officials we spoke with at NAIHC said that larger tribes with
sophisticated housing departments were more likely to view NAHASDA as
less effective than the 1937 Act programs it replaced because they may
receive less funding under the block grant formula.
Table 5: Survey Respondents' Views on the Overall Effectiveness of
NAHASDA, by Fiscal Year 2008 Grant Size:
Very or generally positive:
Grantees receiving less than $250,000: Number: 46;
Grantees receiving less than $250,000: Percentage: 97.9;
Grantees receiving more than $250,000: Number: 154;
Grantees receiving more than $250,000: Percentage: 87.5.
Neither positive or negative:
Grantees receiving less than $250,000: Number: 1;
Grantees receiving less than $250,000: Percentage: 2.1;
Grantees receiving more than $250,000: Number: 14;
Grantees receiving more than $250,000: Percentage: 8.0.
Very or generally negative:
Grantees receiving less than $250,000: Number: 0;
Grantees receiving less than $250,000: Percentage: 0;
Grantees receiving more than $250,000: Number: 8;
Grantees receiving more than $250,000: Percentage: 4.5.
Total:
Grantees receiving less than $250,000: Number: 47;
Grantees receiving less than $250,000: Percentage: 100;
Grantees receiving more than $250,000: Number: 176;
Grantees receiving more than $250,000: Percentage: 100.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
Note: Results shown exclude seven responses of "don't know or no
opinion" and two "not checked" responses.
[End of table]
We asked survey respondents to provide explanations to support their
overall views of NAHASDA, and most that viewed NAHASDA positively
wrote that the program helps them meet their overall affordable
housing needs. However, of those that provided more specific reasons
for NAHASDA's positive impact, most respondents mentioned that the
program has been effective because it allows the grantee to:
* target specific housing needs for their tribe, such as increasing
energy efficiency in affordable units (56 responses);
* exercise self-determination and program flexibility (19 responses);
and:
* leverage their NAHASDA grant with funding from other sources (10
responses).
We also surveyed grantees on the extent to which they thought NAHASDA
was effective at meeting certain programmatic goals. We found that
survey respondents viewed NAHASDA as very effective at improving
housing conditions and increasing access to affordable rental housing
and homeownership, but less effective at developing housing finance
mechanisms and increasing economic development on Indian lands (see
figure 11).[Footnote 24]
Figure 11: Grantees View NAHASDA as Most Effective at Improving
Housing Conditions for Low-Income Native Americans:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Improving housing conditions for low-income tribal members:
Effectiveness of NAHASDA:
Very to extremely: 54.3%;
Somewhat to moderately: 39.2%;
Slightly or not: 4.3%.
Increasing access to affordable rental housing:
Effectiveness of NAHASDA:
Very to extremely: 44.4%;
Somewhat to moderately: 36.2%;
Slightly or not: 13.8%.
Increasing access to affordable homeownership:
Effectiveness of NAHASDA:
Very to extremely: 45.3%;
Somewhat to moderately: 34.9%;
Slightly or not: 15.1%.
Developing private housing finance mechanisms:
Effectiveness of NAHASDA:
Very to extremely: 20.3%;
Somewhat to moderately: 36.2%;
Slightly or not: 25.9%.
Increasing economic development activities, such as providing jobs for
tribal members:
Effectiveness of NAHASDA:
Very to extremely: 24.1%;
Somewhat to moderately: 47.4%;
Slightly or not: 20.7%.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
Note: Of the 232 respondents, 221 provided views on NAHASDA and 11
either did not provide their opinion or checked "don't know."
Percentages show the portion of the total survey responses.
[End of figure]
One survey respondent primarily operating in an urban area wrote that
under NAHASDA, they have been able to develop mixed-use housing in
their region and have been able to supplement the housing they provide
with social support services. Similarly, another survey respondent
wrote that under NAHASDA, they have been able to maintain existing
housing units and provide financial literacy training to the community
as well as counseling to aid prospective homeowners in the tribe.
We asked survey respondents to compare their experiences under NAHASDA
with experiences under the 1937 Act housing programs it replaced in
1998. Of the 138 respondents that checked that they had participated
in the 1937 Act programs, 102 grantees--or about 74 percent--reported
that NAHASDA is an improvement over the programs it replaced. Of those
that viewed NAHASDA as an improvement, about half--53 out of 102--
checked that NAHASDA was much better. Only 17 reported that NAHASDA
was worse or much worse than the 1937 Act programs it replaced (see
table 6).
Table 6: Survey Respondents' Views on NAHASDA Compared with 1937 Act
Housing Programs:
Much better:
Number of responses: 53;
Percentage of those that answered the question: 38.4.
Better:
Number of responses: 49;
Percentage of those that answered the question: 35.5.
About the same:
Number of responses: 19;
Percentage of those that answered the question: 13.8.
Worse:
Number of responses: 15;
Percentage of those that answered the question: 10.9.
Much worse:
Number of responses: 2;
Percentage of those that answered the question: 1.4.
Total:
Number of responses: 138;
Percentage of those that answered the question: 100.0.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
Note: Results shown exclude seven responses of "don't know or no
opinion" and two "not checked" responses. Percentages show the portion
of those respondents that provided views on NAHASDA.
[End of table]
The grantees we interviewed also viewed NAHASDA as an improvement over
1937 Act housing programs, and all of them identified self-
determination as the main reason. For example, one grantee we
interviewed said that because of the flexibility afforded by NAHASDA,
their tribe was able to buy housing units in urban areas rather than
on their reservation and rent the units to low-income members. This
grantee explained that they intended to provide housing in locations
that had more opportunities for employment so that program
beneficiaries could become increasingly self-sufficient.
Self-determination was also the most common reason that survey
respondents favored NAHASDA over the previous housing programs. The
102 survey respondents reporting that NAHASDA was better or much
better provided 85 written reasons for their answers. We analyzed
their responses and found that the largest group--65 responses--said
that NAHASDA was an improvement because it provided for tribal self-
determination. For example, one survey respondent wrote that each
tribe has unique housing needs influenced by their specific cultures,
economic conditions, and physical environments and that NAHASDA has
been a drastic improvement because it allows tribes the flexibility to
meet those needs. Another respondent wrote that although the funding
levels have effectively dropped with NAHASDA, the program has allowed
tribes to be more flexible with how they spend the grant, allowing for
a more effective use of the limited funding. For those survey
respondents that provided explanations on how NAHASDA was worse or
much worse than the programs it replaced, the main reasons provided
were:
* NAHASDA provides less funding than previous programs (six responses):
* NAHASDA is a block grant, which does not reward those tribes that
have the capacity to apply for and win competitive housing grants
(five responses); and:
* NAHASDA has too many administrative and regulatory requirements
(five responses).
Tribes Recommended Loosening Administrative Burdens to Improve the
Program and Reported Limitations in the NAHASDA Grant Allocation
Formula as a Major Challenge:
Respondents to our survey provided a total of 133 distinct
recommendations on how to improve NAHASDA, and most of the respondents
wrote that certain administrative rules and obligations were too
onerous (see table 7). Most commonly, those respondents cited
mandatory environmental reviews as overly cumbersome. Others noted
certain administrative restrictions on their funds; for example, some
said that the cap on the portion of the grant they can use for
administrative expenses was arbitrary and limited their administrative
capacity.[Footnote 25] Specifically, one respondent wrote that
determining the amount spent on administrative costs should be up to
each tribe so that tribes can manage their own programs as they see
fit.
Table 7: Most Frequent Suggestions on How NAHASDA Could be Improved:
How NAHASDA could be improved: Minimize regulatory requirements;
Number of such recommendations: 32.
How NAHASDA could be improved: Provide more training for grantees;
Number of such recommendations: 22.
How NAHASDA could be improved: Ensure that HUD staff is trained and
more responsive;
Number of such recommendations: 21.
How NAHASDA could be improved: Revise HUD's reporting requirements;
Number of such recommendations: 19.
How NAHASDA could be improved: Revise the allocation formula;
Number of such recommendations: 18.
How NAHASDA could be improved: Appropriate more funds;
Number of such recommendations: 12.
How NAHASDA could be improved: Provide funds more quickly;
Number of such recommendations: 9.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
Note: Survey respondents--111 total--provided various suggestions on
improving NAHASDA. Of those that we were able to categorize, we
identified 133 distinct recommendations primarily because some
respondents provided more than one suggestion.
[End of table]
Grantees we interviewed identified limitations in the grant allocation
formula as a particular challenge with the IHBG program. They told us
that they believe the allocation formula is either based on inaccurate
data (for example, enrollment numbers or area construction costs) or
does not consider certain key factors, such as a lack of land to
develop housing. In calculating a grantee's annual allocation, the
formula considers such factors as fair market rent and total
development cost for a grantee's local area. However, the formula does
not take into account whether a tribe has buildable land to use for
housing development in the calculation of total development cost or as
a separate factor.[Footnote 26] The housing director of one small
grantee we visited that did not own trust land reported that they had
to first allocate grant funds to purchase land for any new
development. Similarly, of the 201 survey respondents that provided an
opinion specifically on the grant allocation formula, 159 grantees--or
nearly 80 percent--said the formula could be improved. And, of those
survey respondents that checked certain problems with utilizing
NAHASDA, 46 percent of respondents said that the formula is based on
inaccurate data, and 64 percent said that it does not consider certain
factors such as properly accounting for construction costs or the cost
of purchasing land for development. Survey respondents provided a
total of 159 suggestions on how the IHBG allocation formula could be
improved, and most recommended that the demographic data used in
determining the need portion of the grant be updated (see table 8).
For example, multiple survey respondents said that U.S. Census figures
do not accurately reflect the population for which they provide
housing services.
Two of the grantees we interviewed and some survey respondents also
said that the IHBG operation and maintenance subsidy that currently
supports 1937 Act units should extend to NAHASDA-funded units. During
our visit with one of the grantees we interviewed, the housing
director explained that because their NAHASDA units are low-income,
the tribe would likely need assistance with upkeep to ensure that they
maintain their value.[Footnote 27]
In addition, several of the 12 grantees we interviewed stated that the
minimum IHBG grant of around $50,000 per year is insufficient for
those who receive it to pursue any significant housing activities,
especially new housing development. Some survey respondents provided
similar comments about the minimum grant amount. Moreover, ONAP
officials in all six regions stated that grantees receiving lesser
grants, including the minimum, are limited in their ability to address
their affordable housing needs.
Table 8: Survey Respondents' Suggestions on How the IHBG Allocation
Formula Could Be Improved:
How the IHBG formula could be improved: Improve the demographic data
used;
Number of such recommendations: 38.
How the IHBG formula could be improved: Increase the minimum grant;
Number of such recommendations: 24.
How the IHBG formula could be improved: Revisit the definition of the
formula area;
Number of such recommendations: 19.
How the IHBG formula could be improved: Increase funding;
Number of such recommendations: 20.
How the IHBG formula could be improved: Incorporate certain ongoing
costs, such as unit maintenance;
Number of such recommendations: 23.
How the IHBG formula could be improved: Incorporate certain regional
costs, such as construction costs;
Number of such recommendations: 19.
How the IHBG formula could be improved: Other suggestions;
Number of such recommendations: 16.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
[End of table]
However, ONAP headquarters officials explained that tribes participate
in developing regulations for the grant allocation formula, including
establishing a minimum grant amount, through negotiated rulemaking
with HUD. They informed us that the negotiated rulemaking committee
will be convened in March 2010 to determine regulations that implement
October 2008 statutory changes to NAHASDA. They also confirmed that
the May 2012 committee agenda will include reviewing the allocation
formula.
Almost Half of the Grantees We Surveyed Use IHBG Funds for
Infrastructure Development, but HUD Does Not Collect Grantees' Plans
or Monitor Their Investments in Housing-Related Infrastructure:
Of the 232 NAHASDA grantees responding to our survey, 70 percent
viewed investment in housing-related infrastructure--such as
connecting a home to a local water supply--as a great housing need,
but slightly less than half indicated that they use IHBG funds to
develop infrastructure (see figure 12). Additionally, we found that
HUD does not collect grantees' infrastructure plans or measure their
investments in infrastructure for affordable homes funded by the IHBG
program. According to data from the Department of Health and Human
Services' Indian Health Service (IHS), there is an acute need for
sanitation-related infrastructure for Indian housing in general, and
our survey indicates a significant need for adequate sanitation
infrastructure for homes funded by HUD programs. Some IHS officials
also told us that they have found instances where HUD homes were built
with insufficient planning, taxing existing water supplies and
wastewater systems. Although HUD does not collect information on the
sanitation infrastructure needs for HUD homes, IHS does collect such
information and, according to IHS officials, can make it available to
HUD under a 2007 memorandum of understanding between the agencies.
Figure 12: Housing-Related Infrastructure:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
The following items are identified in the illustration:
Access;
Communications;
Community-level;
Electricity;
Heat;
Sanitation;
Water;
Gas line;
Well;
Septic tank;
Underground sewer system pipe.
Source: GAO and Art Explosion (images).
[End of figure]
Seventy Percent of Survey Respondents Viewed Housing-Related
Infrastructure as a Great Need, but Only About Half Report Using IHBG
Funds to Help Meet that Need:
Out of 232 NAHASDA grantees that responded to our survey, 85 percent
(198 grantees) reported that developing infrastructure, such as
providing homes with access to drinking water, was a continuing need
for their tribe. And, 70 percent (164 grantees) said that developing
infrastructure was a great or very great need. Additionally, grantees
that responded to our survey ranked adding or updating housing-related
infrastructure 4th out of 13 greatest continuing housing needs, after
constructing new units, rehabilitating existing units, and operating
and maintaining units (see figure 13).
Figure 13: Survey Respondents' Rankings of Their Greatest Continuing
Housing Needs, by Percentage:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Constructing new units: 79.3%;
Rehabilitating existing units: 49.1%;
Operating and maintaining units: 40.9%;
Adding or updating infrastructure: 27.6%;
Purchasing land for housing: 26.3%;
Addressing overcrowding: 16.8%;
Increasing energy efficiency: 15.9%;
Providing rental assistance: 15.5%;
Increasing homeownership: 13.8%;
Providing downpayment assistance: 9.9%;
Addressing homelessness: 6.9%;
Providing housing services to members outside the tribal area: 6.0%;
Crime prevention and safety: 6.0%.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
Note: Percentages indicate the portion of survey respondents that
ranked a particular need in their top three continuing housing needs.
Results do not include 4.3 percent of respondents that reported "other
continuing housing needs."
[End of figure]
Despite this demonstrated need for infrastructure development,
slightly less than half of the survey respondents--98 of the 222 who
responded to this question--reported that they actually use their IHBG
grant for infrastructure development (see figure 14). Some of the
grantees that responded to our survey explained that they have a
pronounced need for infrastructure development and that they often do
not receive enough funding to address infrastructure with the IHBG
program. Of those grantees that we spoke with, smaller grantees were
less likely to use the IHBG program for infrastructure, either because
they do not receive enough funding to address their needs or because
they provide assistance to persons living in units that are on a city-
or county-funded infrastructure system. Indeed, the results of our
survey show that, of the grantees receiving a large grant, twice as
many used IHBG funds for infrastructure development as those receiving
a small grant.
Figure 14: Survey Respondents' Use of the IHBG Program for
Infrastructure Development, by Fiscal Year 2008 Grant Size:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts]
Grantees receiving less than $250,000: 28%;
14 out of 50 grantees.
Grantees receiving more than $250,000: 48.8%;
84 out of 172 grantees.
Total: 44.1%;
98 out of 222 grantees.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
[End of figure]
Officials in four of the six regional ONAP offices, as well as half of
the IHS field directors that we spoke with, said that because of the
need for affordable housing for most tribes, tribal housing
departments may be providing housing units without adequate
infrastructure to support those units. Although the grantees we
interviewed did not say that they built homes with inadequate
infrastructure, six said that they use or intend to use other programs
to help meet their infrastructure needs.
NAHASDA emphasizes tribal self-determination by providing a
noncompetitive block grant to tribes, but survey respondents that
provided views on problems with the program said that the greatest
problem--out of a list of six most common problems--is a lack of
funding specifically for housing-related infrastructure (see figure
15).[Footnote 28]
Figure 15: Survey Respondents' Views on Problems with NAHASDA Ranked
by Number of Responses:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Lack of funding specifically for housing-related infrastructure: 122;
Allocation formula does not consider certain key factors: 88;
Administrative costs of operating the program are high: 86;
Program regulations do not allow us to address certain housing needs:
73;
Grant allocation formula is based on inaccurate data: 58;
Agency delays in disbursing grant funds: 48.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
[End of figure]
Housing-related infrastructure development is an affordable housing
activity under NAHASDA. ONAP officials, especially those in the
regional offices, said that prior to NAHASDA, they worked with IHS to
identify all infrastructure needs for housing developments funded by
HUD. Under NAHASDA, however, tribes have the flexibility to determine
the uses of their funding within the scope of eligible activities,
including the extent to which they want to use the IHBG program for
infrastructure development.
Instead of using the IHBG program, survey respondents reported that
they were more likely to fund their infrastructure development using
other funding sources (see table 9). Although some tribes rely on
other programs to help fund their infrastructure development, our
interviews with grantees and findings from a 2003 NAIHC study indicate
that non-IHBG programs for infrastructure development--such as
programs administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, HUD, and
USDA--have characteristics that present challenges to some tribes.
[Footnote 29] For example, while the study found that the ICDBG
program was a sought-after program for IHBG grantees to fund
infrastructure projects, it was only available to tribes that have the
administrative capacity to meet the application requirements.
Furthermore, our analysis found that the ICDBG program is consistently
funded at about one-tenth the level of the IHBG program, making it
much smaller. In addition, since IHS is statutorily prohibited from
funding sanitation facility construction projects for IHBG-funded
units, some survey respondents and grantees we spoke with said that
they were disappointed that IHS would not provide the sanitation
infrastructure support without reimbursement from the tribe.[Footnote
30]
Table 9: Survey Respondents' Use of Various Programs to Develop
Housing-Related Infrastructure:
Programs available to tribes to develop housing-related
infrastructure: IHS programs;
Number of respondents that reported using program(s): 155;
Percentage of all responding: 66.8.
Programs available to tribes to develop housing-related
infrastructure: HUD's ICDBG program;
Number of respondents that reported using program(s): 118;
Percentage of all responding: 50.9.
Programs available to tribes to develop housing-related
infrastructure: Bureau of Indian Affairs programs;
Number of respondents that reported using program(s): 109;
Percentage of all responding: 47.0.
Programs available to tribes to develop housing-related
infrastructure: IHBG program (NAHASDA);
Number of respondents that reported using program(s): 98;
Percentage of all responding: 44.1.
Programs available to tribes to develop housing-related
infrastructure: State and local government programs;
Number of respondents that reported using program(s): 69;
Percentage of all responding: 29.7.
Programs available to tribes to develop housing-related
infrastructure: USDA programs;
Number of respondents that reported using program(s): 61;
Percentage of all responding: 26.3.
Programs available to tribes to develop housing-related
infrastructure: Other sources of funds, including nongovernmental
sources;
Number of respondents that reported using program(s): 40;
Percentage of all responding: 20.7.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
Note: Respondents could select more than one source of funding.
[End of table]
HUD Does Not Collect Information on Grantees' Infrastructure Needs or
the Amounts Grantees Invest in Housing-Related Infrastructure
Development:
HUD's primary tools for monitoring grantees' uses of IHBG funds are
the IHP and the APR. In our review of the IHP, which describes
grantees' plans for the coming year, we found that it does not provide
a means for HUD to systematically collect information from grantees on
both their housing-related infrastructure needs and their plans to
address those needs, including infrastructure for new housing
construction. The IHP collects information on some of grantees'
estimated housing needs, such as the number of families who need
housing because they are living in overcrowded conditions. The IHP
also collects information on grantees' plans to address those stated
needs, such as by constructing new housing to alleviate the
overcrowded conditions. However, although it does cover many important
housing-related activities the IHP does not require grantees to
describe how they intend to address any existing infrastructure
deficiencies, such as a home with inadequate access to potable water.
In addition, the IHP does not require grantees to describe what
infrastructure development a new construction project will require and
how that infrastructure will be funded.
The APR, which describes grantees' accomplishments during the past
year, provides grantees the opportunity to report how they are
carrying out the plans and addressing the housing needs outlined in
the IHP. In our review of the APR, we found that because it is based
on activities described in the IHP, it also lacks an assessment of how
a tribe is meeting the infrastructure needs of its low-income members.
HUD officials we spoke with confirmed that the APR does not track
grantees' infrastructure investments. Although the IHP and the APR
allow grantees to describe any needs and plans--including those for
infrastructure development--in a narrative format, we learned that
those narratives are not included in ONAP's reporting system, which
means that these components are not used in HUD's overall reports to
Congress. Further, one grantee that we spoke with said that they do
not believe HUD officials actually review the narratives or track them
so they do not take the time to list activities that are not measured,
such as infrastructure-related needs and plans.
As previously noted, HUD is planning to combine the IHP and the APR by
fiscal year 2011. We reviewed a draft of this document and found that
while it does a better job of tracking grantees' uses of NAHASDA
funds, from identifying affordable housing needs to assessing the
impact of completed housing development, it does not systematically
assess grantees' needs, plans, or investments related to
infrastructure development. Because grantees are not required to
report on or to quantify their need for and investments in
infrastructure, HUD may lack the information necessary to assess the
extent to which NAHASDA is meeting its statutory objectives of
improving the health and safety of low-income Native Americans and
integrating infrastructure resources to support housing development.
The Indian Health Service Has Found That Inadequate Sanitation
Infrastructure Is an Acute Problem for Native Americans, but HUD Has
Not Used Health Service Data to Help Inform IHBG Grantees of Any
Identified Deficiencies:
Of the 98 survey respondents that reported using IHBG funds for
infrastructure, the majority reported using the IHBG program to
provide access to clean water and to provide for wastewater removal
(see figure 16). Similarly, grantees that we spoke with, and some
responding to our survey, explained that sanitation infrastructure,
such as providing access to clean drinking water and providing for the
safe, reliable removal of wastewater, was an important type of
infrastructure for low-income housing. According to IHS, access to
adequate sanitation facilities is a vital public health issue for
Native Americans. Adequate access to safe drinking water helps to stem
the spread of disease, and proper wastewater removal systems help
reduce the incidence of bacteria, viruses, and parasites that cause
communicable diseases like typhoid and hepatitis A.
Figure 16: Types of Infrastructure for Which Survey Respondents
Reported Using IHBG Funds:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Water systems:
Percentage that used IHBG funds for each type of infrastructure: 34.1%;
Number of respondents: 79.
Wastewater systems:
Percentage that used IHBG funds for each type of infrastructure: 30.2%;
Number of respondents: 70.
Roads:
Percentage that used IHBG funds for each type of infrastructure: 25.4%;
Number of respondents: 59.
Electrical systems:
Percentage that used IHBG funds for each type of infrastructure: 22.0%;
Number of respondents: 51.
Telephone lines:
Percentage that used IHBG funds for each type of infrastructure: 16.8%;
Number of respondents: 39%.
Gas/propane lines:
Percentage that used IHBG funds for each type of infrastructure: 13.8%;
Number of respondents: 32.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
Note: This graphic does not include those respondents that reported
using the IHBG for "other infrastructure," which amounted to 15
responses, or 6.5 percent of the total.
[End of figure]
Government data sources show that there is still an acute need for
adequate sanitation infrastructure on Indian lands. The U.S. Census
estimated that in 2008 Native American households were five times as
likely to have incomplete plumbing as the rest of the population. And,
according to a March 2008 draft report issued by an interagency
infrastructure task force written pursuant to the United Nation's
Millennium Challenge Goals, approximately 43,800 housing units
occupied by Native Americans--or about 13 percent of Native American
homes--had inadequate access to safe drinking water and wastewater
disposal systems in 2007. [Footnote 31]
The report noted a slight improvement since the benchmark year, 2003,
when there were 44,234 homes with inadequate infrastructure. However,
it concluded that this rate of decrease was not sufficient to meet the
U.S. government's goal of reducing the number of Native American homes
with inadequate sanitation facilities to half of the 2003 figure by
2015. HUD officials we spoke with told us that they joined this task
force at its inception in 2003 and signed a memorandum of
understanding with the other members of the task force, including IHS,
to facilitate interagency coordination to meet the United Nations goal.
The data used in the report were collected by IHS's Sanitation
Tracking and Reporting System, a database that tracks reported
sanitation deficiencies for most Native American communities. Although
IHS is statutorily precluded from funding sanitation construction
services for HUD homes, IHS is authorized to and actively collects
data on the infrastructure needs for those homes as long as the data
are reported by their tribal counterparts. IHS officials we spoke with
in headquarters and five of the ten officials we contacted in field
offices said that they have found instances where tribes in their
region have built homes using NAHASDA funding with inadequate planning
for sanitation infrastructure. For example, one official told us that
his field office has been contacted by individual tribal members about
NAHASDA homes with inadequate sewer lines or inadequate drains. He
added that, in general, tribal housing departments may feel pressure
from their community to maximize the number of housing units produced
and that this pressure may lead to more units being built at the
expense of adequate infrastructure for the units. The other five field
directors said that they have not seen tribes build NAHASDA homes with
inadequate infrastructure, but three of these five acknowledged that
NAHASDA homes could be stretching existing infrastructure facilities
in certain communities. For example, one director told us that because
NAHASDA homes are often built within existing housing developments, as
tribes add homes to existing communities, the communities' underlying
sanitation infrastructure may increasingly be burdened with those
homes.
HUD officials we spoke with said that they also do not have the data
necessary to measure the extent to which HUD-funded homes need updated
infrastructure investment. However, according to IHS officials, HUD
can access IHS's sanitation deficiency database pursuant to a 2007
memorandum of understanding that specifically authorizes data sharing
between IHS, HUD, and other agencies.
Conclusions:
Native American tribes generally have a positive view of NAHASDA, and
most see it as an improvement over the housing programs previously
available to them, in large part because of NAHASDA's emphasis on self-
determination for the tribes. However, small grantees that receive
lesser grants reported facing challenges in building new housing and
in trying to leverage their grant funds to secure additional funding
for affordable housing activities. Reporting on NAHASDA
accomplishments is currently limited primarily to building, acquiring,
and rehabilitating housing units, despite the fact that many tribes
use NAHASDA funds for other eligible purposes. Because of this
limitation in reporting, HUD has not collected a full set of data on
NAHASDA. As a result, Congress has not had a complete picture of the
program's accomplishments. However, the revisions HUD plans to make to
the Indian Housing Plan (IHP) and Annual Performance Report (APR)
should address some reporting limitations, which should help efforts
to assess the impact of NAHASDA on low-income Native Americans.
NAHASDA also has helped some tribes with infrastructure development,
but infrastructure continues to be a pressing need for many tribes,
particularly in the area of sanitation. HUD does not currently collect
grantees' assessments of their housing-related infrastructure needs or
data on how they use grant funds to address those needs, and planned
revisions to the IHP and APR do not address reporting on
infrastructure. As a result, additional opportunities exist for HUD to
collect such information, which would allow it to track grantees'
efforts to address a key need in their communities and would broaden
the scope of accomplishment data that HUD can report to Congress.
Furthermore, comprehensive data on tribes' infrastructure needs as
they pertain to sanitation facilities are already collected by IHS and
are available to HUD under an interagency memorandum of understanding.
If HUD were to obtain this data and share it with grantees, the data
could help tribes identify any unmet sanitation needs that they might
include in their reporting and address with their NAHASDA grants.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To better assess the extent to which NAHASDA is meeting its objectives
of providing safe and healthy homes and coordinating infrastructure
with housing development for low-income Native Americans, we recommend
that HUD's Office of Native American Programs ensure that its revised
Indian Housing Plan and Annual Performance Report:
* capture data on tribes' infrastructure-related needs;
* capture tribes' plans for addressing their identified infrastructure
needs;
* measure the extent to which NAHASDA grantees are using IHBG funds
and Title VI loan guarantees for housing-related infrastructure
development; and:
* assess the effectiveness of infrastructure development in meeting
the needs of low-income Native Americans, such as by measuring the
number of low-income Native Americans that have better access to
drinking water or a safe heat source.
To help grantees identify their existing sanitation infrastructure
needs, we recommend that HUD provide them with sanitation deficiency
data obtained from IHS on homes in the grantees' service area--
particularly for those homes that are statutorily precluded from
receiving IHS-funded sanitation construction services.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to HUD for review and comment.
HUD's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs provided
written comments that are discussed below and presented in Appendix IV.
HUD stated that our report is generally positive and would be a very
useful document. HUD also requested that we change the report title to
reflect only the generally positive view of the Indian Housing Block
Grant (IHBG) program under NAHASDA. However, we thought it necessary
to include language on an issue for which the report makes
recommendations to HUD.
HUD also agreed with our conclusions and recommendations, noting that
while there have been improvements, our conclusion that there is still
a significant need for adequate infrastructure to support Indian
housing is accurate. Additionally, HUD stated, and we agree, that HUD
and the Indian Health Service (IHS) should continue to work together
to address these problems. As indicated in our conclusions and
recommendations, we believe that HUD's inclusion of infrastructure
needs and investments in program reporting and its use of IHS data on
sanitation deficiencies in Indian country should benefit Native
American tribes participating in the IHBG program and capture
additional program results for HUD and Congress. HUD noted that
allowing tribes to use their IHBG funds to leverage IHS resources
would improve their ability to address infrastructure deficiencies. In
our report, we highlight that leveraging IHBG funds with funds from
other sources has benefited tribes, and that many tribes view
leveraging as a practical approach to adequately funding their
communities' affordable housing needs.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development and other interested parties. The report is also
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in Appendix V.
Signed by:
William B. Shear:
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Our objectives were to evaluate (1) how Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) program funds
have allowed Native American tribes to address their affordable
housing needs; (2) how, if at all, NAHASDA has improved the process of
providing Native American tribes with access to federal funds to meet
their affordable housing needs; and (3) the extent to which NAHASDA
funding has contributed to infrastructure improvements in Native
American communities.
To address all three objectives, we reviewed NAHASDA's legislative
history and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD)
policies and procedures for administering the program. We interviewed
officials in HUD's Office of Native American Programs (ONAP)
headquarters and in all six regional ONAP offices. We reviewed
previous congressional reports and testimonies, our previous reports,
a 2007 Office of Management and Budget Program Assessment Rating Tool
report on the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program, and a 2009
independent study of the IHBG program contracted by HUD. To obtain
information on grantees' experiences with the program, we developed a
sample of 12 grantees--2 in each ONAP region--of various sizes. We
reviewed HUD's annual IHBG allocation reports for fiscal years 1998
through 2008, which include data on each tribe's American Indian and
Alaska Native population, reported enrollment, criteria that HUD uses
to determine the IHBG allocation, and the grant amount. Though
grantees may be individual tribes or their tribally designated housing
entities (TDHE), HUD makes an allocation to each tribe. To help us
evaluate the program's effectiveness in meeting the affordable housing
needs of tribes of various sizes, we further analyzed the fiscal year
2008 allocation report by ONAP region to determine which grantees in
each region could be identified as large or small based on population
and enrollment--or as receiving a large or small grant--when compared
with other grantees in the same region. In our analysis, we found that
small and large grantees, based on population and grant size, were not
always similar among the six ONAP regions. Because tribal populations
vary across regions and grant size is largely based on population
factors, small and large designations within regions also were
relative to other grantees in each region. For the purposes of our
review, we generally considered annual grants less than $250,000 to be
lesser grants and the grantees receiving those grants to be small
grantees. We chose to interview a range of grantees and, for each
region, we interviewed two grantees whose population and grant size
varied widely (see table 10). In making a final sample selection, we
solicited input from the relevant oversight ONAP office on grantee
participation, performance, and accessibility. We interviewed grantees
either onsite or by telephone. To obtain a wider range of grantee
perspectives, we also administered a Web-based survey to all grantees
that received funding in fiscal year 2008, obtaining a 66 percent
response rate. Additionally, we met with officials from groups
representing Native American housing interests: the National American
Indian Housing Council (NAIHC), a nonprofit organization that
represents the interests of American Indians, Alaska Natives, and
Native Hawaiians in providing affordable housing; and Cherokee
Freedmen representatives, who advocate for housing and other benefits
for the Cherokee Freedmen. Appendix III contains a brief history of
the Cherokee Freedmen and information pertaining to the Cherokee
Nation's provision of housing assistance to Cherokee Freedmen members.
Finally, we interviewed officials at the Indian Health Service (IHS),
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Rural Development because those agencies also provide
assistance to Native American communities.
Table 10: Location and Other Characteristics of NAHASDA Grantees
Selected for Site Visits and Telephone Interviews:
HUD ONAP region: Alaska;
Grantee's location: Alaska;
2008 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population: 33,004[A];
2008 Tribal enrollment: 7,433;
Fiscal year 2008 IHBG allocation: $13,383,003.
HUD ONAP region: Alaska;
Grantee's location: Alaska;
2008 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population: 958;
2008 Tribal enrollment: 592;
Fiscal year 2008 IHBG allocation: $301,873.
HUD ONAP region: Eastern Woodlands;
Grantee's location: Michigan;
2008 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population: 588;
2008 Tribal enrollment: 294;
Fiscal year 2008 IHBG allocation: $125,437.
HUD ONAP region: Eastern Woodlands;
Grantee's location: Wisconsin;
2008 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population: 11,157;
2008 Tribal enrollment: 14,745;
Fiscal year 2008 IHBG allocation: $3,465,919.
HUD ONAP region: Southern Plains;
Grantee's location: Oklahoma;
2008 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population: 2,793;
2008 Tribal enrollment: 3,196;
Fiscal year 2008 IHBG allocation: $500,088.
HUD ONAP region: Southern Plains;
Grantee's location: Oklahoma;
2008 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population: 118,059;
2008 Tribal enrollment: 241,226;
Fiscal year 2008 IHBG allocation: $27,605,755.
HUD ONAP region: Southwest;
Grantee's location: Arizona;
2008 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population: 189,314;
2008 Tribal enrollment: 268,004;
Fiscal year 2008 IHBG allocation: $74,025,827.
HUD ONAP region: Southwest;
Grantee's location: California;
2008 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population: 65;
2008 Tribal enrollment: 214;
Fiscal year 2008 IHBG allocation: $48,660.
HUD ONAP region: Northwest;
Grantee's location: Washington;
2008 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population: 200;
2008 Tribal enrollment: 377;
Fiscal year 2008 IHBG allocation: $137,663.
HUD ONAP region: Northwest;
Grantee's location: Washington;
2008 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population: 8,192;
2008 Tribal enrollment: 4,096;
Fiscal year 2008 IHBG allocation: $2,911,842.
HUD ONAP region: Northern Plains;
Grantee's location: Montana;
2008 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population: 7,905;
2008 Tribal enrollment: 6,970;
Fiscal year 2008 IHBG allocation: $4,109,638.
HUD ONAP region: Northern Plains;
Grantee's location: Utah;
2008 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population: 725;
2008 Tribal enrollment: 437;
Fiscal year 2008 IHBG allocation: $182,343.
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Note: The AI/AN population data is based on 2000 U.S. Census data for
all AI/AN households within a tribe's formula (geographic) area while
enrollment is based on tribal data for members enrolled.
[A] This grantee is a regional housing entity serving several tribes.
[End of table]
Survey Administration:
We initially contacted 351 tribes or TDHEs who were recipients of 2008
NAHASDA grants.[Footnote 32] We sent initial notifications and the
survey by e-mail to most grantees. A small number of grantees did not
have e-mail accounts, and we contacted them by telephone and sent them
the survey by fax. To encourage responses, we followed up with four e-
mails that included a link to the survey. Additionally, to try and
increase the response rate, we contacted those grantees who had not
responded to the e-mailed survey by telephone. We also contacted some
respondents by telephone to clarify unclear responses. We received
responses from 232 grantees, or a 66 percent response rate. Grantees
responding to the survey represented 413 of the 535 tribes (77
percent) nationwide that benefited from NAHASDA grants in 2008.
To pretest the questionnaire, we conducted cognitive interviews and
held debriefing sessions with five NAHASDA grantees; two pretests were
conducted in person and three were conducted by telephone. Pretest
participants were selected to represent a variety of grantee sizes (as
represented by dollar amount of the grants); whether they represented
a tribe, single-tribe TDHE, or umbrella TDHE; and geographic
locations. We conducted these pretests to determine if the questions
were burdensome or difficult to understand and if they measured what
we intended. In addition, we met individually with officials from ONAP
and NAIHC to obtain their comments on our questionnaire. On the basis
of the feedback from the pretests and these other knowledgeable
entities, we modified the questions as appropriate.
Content coding of responses. We provided respondents with an
opportunity to answer several open-ended questions. The responses to
those questions were classified and coded for content by a GAO
analyst, while a second analyst verified that the first analyst had
coded the responses appropriately. Some comments were coded into more
than one category since some respondents commented on more than one
topic. As a result, the number of coded items is not equal to the
number of respondents who provided comments. These comments cannot be
generalized to our population of NAHASDA grantees.
Nonsampling errors. Because this was not a sample survey, there are no
sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any
survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as
nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular
question is interpreted, the sources of information available to
respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can introduce
unwanted variability into the survey results. We included steps at
both the data collection and data analysis stages for the purpose of
minimizing such nonsampling errors.
These steps included (1) having survey specialists help develop the
questionnaire, (2) pretesting the questionnaire with NAHASDA grantees,
(3) using multiple reminders to encourage survey response, and (4)
contacting respondents to follow up on obvious inconsistencies,
errors, and incomplete answers.
Nonresponse analysis. Because only 66 percent of the study population
provided responses, bias from nonresponse may result. If the responses
of those who did not respond would have differed from the responses of
those who did on some survey questions, the numbers reported solely
from those who did respond would be biased from excluding parts of the
population with different characteristics or views. To limit this kind
of error, we made multiple attempts to obtain the participation of as
many NAHASDA grantees as possible. We performed an additional analysis
to determine whether our survey respondents had characteristics that
were significantly different from all grantees in the study
population. To do this, we identified two grantee characteristics that
were available for the entire study population--grantee location
(region) and grant size. For these comparisons, we found little
difference between the distribution of responses from the respondents
and the actual population values.
However, when comparing respondents to nonrespondents by grant size,
we found that the survey respondents, on average, received much larger
grants; the median grant size was $717,686 for those who responded and
$451,222 for those who did not. This suggests that grantees receiving
large grant amounts were more likely to participate in our survey than
others. For example, more than two-thirds of grantees with grants
larger than $250,000 participated in the survey while only about half
of the smaller grantees participated. Respondents to the survey
received about 80 percent of the grant amounts distributed in 2008.
We performed computer analyses to identify inconsistencies in
responses and other indications of error. In addition, an independent
analyst verified that the computer programs used to analyze the data
were written correctly.
To evaluate how NAHASDA program funds have allowed Native American
tribes to address their affordable housing needs, we reviewed NAHASDA
legislation to identify housing activities that are eligible under the
program. We reviewed HUD performance data on the NAHASDA program,
including its fiscal year 2008 NAHASDA Report to Congress and
cumulative data on affordable housing units grantees built, acquired,
and rehabilitated using IHBG funds during fiscal years 2003 through
2008. We assessed the reliability of these data by (1) performing
electronic testing of the data elements, (2) reviewing existing
information about the data and the systems that produced them, and (3)
interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about these data. We
determined that these variables were sufficiently reliable for our
reporting purposes. In addition to analyzing the 2008 IHBG allocation
report, we reviewed data on pre-NAHASDA units that HUD factored into
making 2008 grant allocations. We also reviewed the Indian Housing
Plan (IHP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) forms that grantees use
to report on planned and actual housing activities each year. Further,
we requested and analyzed a sample of completed IHPs for 2005 through
2008 that grantees submitted in each ONAP region to determine the
types of housing activities grantees were pursuing in recent years. We
used the IHP information in part to develop our sample for grantee
site visits and telephone interviews. In conducting those site visits
and telephone interviews and in our Web-based survey, we asked
grantees questions related to how they use IHBG funds to address their
affordable housing needs, other sources of funding they use in
combination with the IHBG program (leveraging), some of the challenges
they experience with the IHBG program or with leveraging, and program
reporting. Similarly, in our interviews with regional ONAP officials,
we asked questions about grantees' housing activities, leveraging, and
program reporting. Specific to leveraging, we asked whether ONAP
provides resources to assist grantees with identifying and accessing
other potential funding opportunities to supplement their IHBG funds.
Finally, we interviewed officials at IHS, BIA, and USDA about
collaborating with HUD to provide housing and related services to
Native American communities.
To evaluate how, if at all, NAHASDA has improved the process of
providing Native American tribes with access to federal funds to meet
their affordable housing needs, we obtained perspectives from ONAP,
grantees, and NAIHC on NAHASDA as it compares to the housing programs
for which Native Americans were eligible under the U.S. Housing Act of
1937 (1937 Act). In our interviews with ONAP officials, grantees, and
NAIHC representatives, we discussed various aspects of NAHASDA in
comparison with the 1937 Act programs, including program structure and
funding. In our Web-based survey, we also asked grantees to report on
specific challenges they have experienced with the IHBG program, and
we asked those with pre-NAHASDA experience to rate NAHASDA in
comparison with pre-NAHASDA programs.
To evaluate the extent to which NAHASDA funding has contributed to
infrastructure improvements in Native American communities, we
reviewed the NAHASDA legislation to identify the statutory goals of
the program. We then analyzed HUD's IHP and APR forms to assess the
extent to which HUD tracked grantees' infrastructure needs and
measured their investments in housing-related infrastructure
development. In conducting our grantee site visits and telephone
interviews and in our Web-based survey, we discussed grantees' use of
NAHASDA funds to meet their infrastructure needs. We also discussed
their use of IHBG funds for infrastructure development. In our survey,
in particular, we asked grantees to describe their housing-related
infrastructure needs, the extent to which they use IHBG funds to meet
those needs, and any challenges they face. In our meetings with each
of the six regional ONAP offices and with officials at ONAP
headquarters, we asked similar questions. Finally, we asked IHS
officials for their assessment of the sanitation infrastructure needs
on Indian lands and we reviewed IHS's sanitation deficiency data
collection process and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit in Alaska; Arizona; California;
Colorado; Illinois; Michigan; Montana; Oklahoma; Utah; Washington;
Washington, D.C.; and Wisconsin from January 2009 to February 2010 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Survey Respondents' Suggestions for Smaller Tribes
Participating in NAHASDA:
To identify potential steps that small grantees can take to maximize
the impact of their Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) grant, we asked all survey
respondents to suggest best practices or effective strategies for
grantees that receive lesser grants, which we defined as less than
$250,000 per year (see table 11). Of the 168 distinct recommendations
provided, respondents overwhelmingly mentioned using the NAHASDA grant
in combination with other funding sources--also known as leveraging--
to maximize the grant's impact. Other recommendations focused on
enhancing the administrative capacity of tribal housing departments.
For example, some survey respondents wrote that tribes should make
sure to hire staff with experience in grant writing and others
recommended that small grantees pool their resources, for example by
joining an umbrella tribally designated housing entity, to minimize
administrative costs.
Table 11: Advice for Grantees Receiving Grants of Less Than $250,000
per Year:
Survey respondents recommend that tribes receiving less than $250,000
a year: Leverage their grant Use their NAHASDA grant to leverage other
sources of funding such as the Section 184 loan program, U.S.
Department if Agriculture's Rural Development loans, and state or
local funding;
Number of such recommendations: 61.
Survey respondents recommend that tribes receiving less than $250,000
a year: Focus on smaller projects instead of constructing units Focus
on smaller projects such as home rehabilitation, weatherization,
downpayment assistance, or rental assistance;
Number of such recommendations: 21.
Survey respondents recommend that tribes receiving less than $250,000
a year: Identify and focus on the tribe's priorities Such as by
conducting a survey of the tribe and by meeting with tribal leadership
to create an effective housing plan;
Number of such recommendations: 20.
Survey respondents recommend that tribes receiving less than $250,000
a year: Increase administrative capacity Such as by hiring a
professional grant writer;
Number of such recommendations: 18.
Survey respondents recommend that tribes receiving less than $250,000
a year: Pool their resources with other NAHASDA recipients Such as by
joining an umbrella tribally designated housing entity in their
region, in order to maximize administrative capacity and available
funds;
Number of such recommendations: 14.
Survey respondents recommend that tribes receiving less than $250,000
a year: Learn best practices from peers Such as by contacting the
National American Indian Housing Council or other grantees with more
experience in using NAHASDA;
Number of such recommendations: 11.
Survey respondents recommend that tribes receiving less than $250,000
a year: Accumulate funds over time Combine multiple-year grants
(called "phasing") to accumulate a larger pool of funds;
Number of such recommendations: 10.
Survey respondents recommend that tribes receiving less than $250,000
a year: Minimize administrative expenses Such as by limiting housing
staff size and travel expenses;
Number of such recommendations: 10.
Survey respondents recommend that tribes receiving less than $250,000
a year: Other suggestions;
Number of such recommendations: 3.
Source: GAO survey of NAHASDA grantees.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Cherokee Freedmen:
As part of our outreach to tribal entities served by the Native
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
(NAHASDA) program, we obtained information pertaining to the provision
of federal housing assistance to Cherokee Freedmen. In a suit filed in
federal district court, the Cherokee Freedmen claim to be "direct
descendants of former slaves of the Cherokees, or free blacks who
intermarried with Cherokees, who were made citizens of the Cherokee
Nation in the Nineteenth Century." The Cherokee Nation, a federally
recognized Indian tribe headquartered in Oklahoma, has attempted to
expel this particular group of its citizens over the past several
years through both tribal legislation and constitutional amendment.
The Cherokee Freedmen's claim for tribal membership is based on an
1866 treaty between the Cherokee Nation and the federal government,
under which two groups of people--former slaves of the Cherokee Nation
and "all free colored persons"--either residing in Cherokee territory
when the Civil War began or who returned within six months, and the
descendants of such persons, were guaranteed "all rights of native
Cherokees." In response to the efforts to deny them citizenship
rights, the Cherokee Freedmen have turned to litigation in both
federal and tribal court, claiming that the action of the Cherokee
Nation conflicts with the treaty and violates equal protection. The
Cherokee Nation's arguments are grounded on the premise that the
authority of Indian tribes to define membership is inherent. Any
attempt by the Cherokee Nation to act on its measures to disenroll the
Cherokee Freedmen has been enjoined in tribal court while federal
litigation proceeds.[Footnote 33] Figure 17 provides an overview of
key events in the Cherokee Freedmen's history since 1866.
Figure 17: Cherokee Freedmen History:
[Refer to PDF for image: timeline]
1896 Membership on the Dawes Rolls: The Dawes Commission created the
membership rolls of the “Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma,” including
the Cherokee Nation. For the Cherokee, two separate rolls were
created: the Freedmen Roll and the Blood Roll.
Treaty of 1866, Article IX: The Cherokee agreed that all freedmen who
were residents of the Cherokee Nation and their descendants would have
the same rights as Native Cherokees.
1976 Ratification of Constitution: The Cherokee ratified their
constitution, requiring reference to the Dawes Rolls for tribal
membership. Subsequently, the Cherokee passed legislation requiring
descent exclusively from the Blood Roll for tribal member-ship,
denying the Cherokee Freedmen voting rights and eligibility for
Cherokee Nation programs and services.
2003 Election for Principal Chief: Several Cherokee Freedmen alleged
to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that they were excluded from
voting in the 2003 election for Principal Chief because their ancestry
came from the Freedmen Roll. BIA approved the results of this election.
August 2003 Vann v. Kempthorne: In response to the 2003 election, the
Cherokee Freedmen filed a lawsuit in federal district court against
the Secretary of the Interior and requested that the election be ruled
invalid.
March 7, 2006, Allen v. Cherokee Nation Tribal Council: The Cherokee
Nation Judicial Appeals Tribunal ruled that the provision of the Code
of the Cherokee Nation that tribal membership was derived only through
the Blood Roll violated the Cherokee Constitution.
December 19, 2006, Federal District Court Decision: In Vann v.
Kempthorne, the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that
both the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, and the Treaty of
1866 abrogated tribal sovereign immunity with respect to the suit
filed by the Freedmen described above. The court allowed the Cherokee
Freedmen to sue the Cherokee Nation and the tribal officers, along
with Secretary Kempthorne.
March 3, 2007, Referendum: The Cherokee Nation voted to amend its
constitution to exclude Freedmen from tribal membership (not approved
by BIA).
May 22, 2007, Temporary Injunction: The District Court of the Cherokee
Nation issued a temporary injunction against enforcement of the March
2007 constitutional amendment and reinstated membership benefits to
the Freedmen.
June 23, 2007, Referendum: The Cherokee Nation passed a referendum to
remove the requirement for BIA approval of constitutional amendments.
October 2008 NAHASDA Reauthorization: The statute authorized the
Cherokee Nation to receive Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act (NAHASDA) funds as long as the May 2007 injunction
remained in effect pending the outcome of various litigation between
the Cherokee Nation, Cherokee Freedmen, and the federal government.
July 24, 2008, Vann v. Kempthorne Decision: The D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals, reversing the District Court, rules that the sovereign
immunity of the Cherokee Nation was not abrogated by the 13th
Amendment or the 1866 Treaty; however, the Court also held that tribal
sovereign immunity did not bar a lawsuit that sought to stop the
officers of the Cherokee Nation from violating the 13th Amendment and
the 1866 Treaty.
April 30, 2009: Several members of Congress sent a letter to Attorney
General Holder requesting that the Department of Justice investigate
allegations that the Cherokee Nation had denied benefits, including
housing assistance, to its Cherokee Freedmen members.
May 7, 2009: Two members of Congress urged the Department of Justice
to reject fellow members’ request for an investigation into alleged
violations of the Freedmen’s civil rights, contending that the issue
is for the courts to decide.
November 9, 2009: The Department of Justice declines to initiate an
investigation, citing ongoing litigation over the status of the
Freedmen.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
The Cherokee Freedmen and Housing Benefits:
As part of our outreach to tribal entities served by NAHASDA, we
obtained information pertaining to the provision of housing assistance
to Cherokee Freedmen. We relied on statements from the Cherokee
Nation's housing department, representatives of the Cherokee Freedmen,
and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) officials for
the following information:
* According to the Cherokee Nation's housing department, the
department is "color blind" and makes no distinction between Cherokee
Freedmen and other enrolled members in providing housing benefits.
* Cherokee Freedmen representatives told us that many Cherokee
Freedmen members' enrollment applications have not been processed and
many enrolled members have been unable to obtain housing and other
benefits.
* HUD officials explained that because they had not received any
complaints from Cherokee Freedmen regarding housing benefits as of
February 1, 2010, HUD is not actively monitoring the Cherokee Nation's
compliance with the injunction in its provision of housing benefits to
members. The officials said that they would pursue any such complaints
through HUD's program monitoring and enforcement procedures.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development:
Office Of Public and Indian Housing:
Washington, DC 20410-5000:
February 22, 2010:
Mr. William B. Shear:
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
As you requested, the Office of Public and Indian Housing, Office of
Native American Programs has reviewed the draft report on Native
American Housing. It is a generally positive report and will be a very
useful document when issued. Other than some minor technical comments
that were forwarded under separate cover the following official
comments are provided:
It is recommend that the title "Tribes Generally View Block Grant
Program as Effective, but Tracking of Infrastructure Plans and
Investments Needs Improvement" be changed to remove everything after
the comma. The title highlights a small negative aspect of a report
that is generally positive about the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG)
program.
One of the conclusions reached is that HUD does not collect or report
on infrastructure needs, and does not access the Indian Health Service
(IHS) sanitation deficiency data. Adequate access to safe drinking
water and sanitation facilities has been a serious concern and
documented need in Indian Country. While there have been improvements,
as cited in the draft report, there still exists a significant need
for adequate infrastructure to support Indian Housing. HUD and IHS
should continue to work together to address these problems. Allowing
the use of IHBG funds to leverage IHS infrastructure resources would
greatly improve the resources available to Indian tribes to address
this serious problem.
Please contact Jennifer Bullough, Director of Grants Evaluation,
Office of Native American Programs, at (202) 402-4274, if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Rodger J. Boyd:
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
William B. Shear, (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Andy Finkel, Assistant
Director; Bernice Benta; Juliann Gorse; John McGrail; Marc Molino;
Luann Moy; Paul Revesz; and Jennifer Schwartz made key contributions
to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The 1937 Act, as amended, created programs to provide decent,
safe, and sanitary housing for low-income families. Native Americans
did not receive federal housing funds under the 1937 Act until 1961.
[2] Title VI of NAHASDA enables HUD to provide a 95 percent loan
guarantee to private lenders or investors that make loans to NAHASDA
grantees to develop housing and community facilities. The Title VI
loan is secured by a grantee's pledge of its current and future IHBG
funds. In this report, we use the term grantee to mean NAHASDA grant
recipient.
[3] GAO, Native American Housing: Information on HUD's Funding of
Indian Housing Programs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-99-16] (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
30, 1998).
[4] For additional details on the results of our survey, see GAO-10-
373SP.
[5] According to the U.S. Census, in 2000, 879,381 American Indian and
Alaska Native (AI/AN) individuals--or 36 percent of all AI/AN
individuals--lived on trust land, reservations, or other tribal-owned
property. The number of AI/AN individuals living on trust land,
reservations, or other tribal-owned property more than doubled from
1990 to 2000. These Census numbers are based on single-race reporting,
that is, individuals who reported only that they were AI/AN and not
AI/AN and another race.
[6] A 1995 GAO report describes block grants as "a form of federal aid
authorized for a wider range of activities […] The recipients of block
grants are given greater flexibility to use funds based on their own
priorities and to design programs and allocate resources as they
determine to be appropriate. These recipients are typically general
purpose governments at the state or local level, as opposed to service
providers (for example, community action organizations)." GAO, Block
Grants: Characteristics, Experience, and Lessons Learned, GAO/HEHS-95-
74 (Feb. 9, 1995).
[7] A TDHE is either (1) a former Indian Housing Authority that
managed Native American housing programs under the 1937 Act and
converted its operations to meet the requirements of NAHASDA or (2) a
new nontribal government entity authorized by one or more tribes to
receive grants and provide affordable housing assistance for Native
Americans under NAHASDA. A TDHE acts on behalf of the one or more
tribes authorizing or establishing the housing entity.
[8] The terms Indian and Native American generally refer to American
Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN). In this report, we generally use
Native American interchangeably with AI/AN.
[9] According to 24 CFR 1000.10, an Indian Housing Authority is "[...]
an entity that [...] is authorized to engage or assist in the
development or operation of low-income housing for Indians under the
1937 Act; and [...] is established: (i) by exercise of the power of
self government of an Indian tribe independent of state law; or (ii)
by operation of state law providing specifically for housing
authorities for Indians, including regional housing authorities in the
state of Alaska."
[10] Under specific circumstances, non-low-income Indian families and
non-Indian families residing on a reservation or in an Indian area
also are eligible to receive assistance.
[11] Per the 2008 reauthorization of NAHASDA, provisions regarding
binding commitments for the remaining useful life of property do not
apply to a family or household member who subsequently takes ownership
of a homeownership unit. This affordability provision also does not
apply to housing built under Section 202 of the 1937 Act.
[12] The American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000
authorized the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program under
NAHASDA to serve Native Hawaiians. The Hawaii State Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands is the sole recipient of program funds. The Native
Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program was not included in this review.
[13] The six regional ONAP offices are Alaska ONAP (Anchorage),
Eastern Woodlands ONAP (Chicago), Northern Plains ONAP (Denver),
Northwest ONAP (Seattle), Southern Plains ONAP (Oklahoma City), and
Southwest ONAP (Phoenix). In 2008, HUD's Alaska ONAP had the smallest
proportion of total AI/AN residents in the six regions (3 percent);
the largest proportions of AI/AN were in the Southwest region (32
percent) and Eastern Woodlands region (30 percent). However, the
Alaska region had the largest proportion of its total population that
identifies as AI/AN (15 percent); the Eastern Woodlands region had the
smallest proportion of its total population that identifies as AI/AN
(0.49 percent).
[14] Through negotiated rulemaking between HUD and tribal
representatives, NAHASDA regulations initially established a provision
for minimum IHBG funding. The provision allowed a tribe that was
allocated less than $50,000 for the need portion of its grant in the
first year of participation to have the need portion of its grant
adjusted to $50,000. In subsequent fiscal years, a tribe that was
allocated less than $25,000 for the need portion of its grant would
have the need portion of its grant adjusted to $25,000. Minimum
funding was initially established for fiscal years 1998 to 2002. From
fiscal years 2003 to 2007, HUD extended minimum funding each year to
avoid hardship to the affected tribes. In fiscal year 2008, the annual
minimum grant was revised through negotiated rulemaking to reflect a
percentage of the IHBG annual appropriation.
[15] Prior to fiscal year 2003, ONAP did not have reliable data on
IHBG activity. For data purposes, HUD considers NAHASDA-funded units
to be those built using any IHBG funds.
[16] According to the National American Indian Housing Council
(NAIHC), as of January 2009, the organization had a membership of 267
tribes and TDHEs, representing nearly 460 Indian tribes. NAIHC
provides its members with training, technical assistance, research,
communications, and advocacy.
[17] Grantees' pre-NAHASDA housing units decrease in number over time
when grantees convey units from their inventories through lease-
purchase or purchase agreements; when units are demolished; or when
grantees otherwise lose the legal right to own, operate, or maintain
the units.
[18] Among the six ONAP regions, survey respondents indicated their
participation in the ICDBG program as follows: Alaska (69 percent or
24/35); Eastern Woodlands (60 percent or 24/40); Northern Plains (95
percent or 19/20); Northwest (72 percent or 13/18); Southern Plains
(66 percent or 21/32); and Southwest (71 percent or 52/73).
[19] Among the six ONAP regions, survey respondents indicated their
participation in the Section 184 loan program as follows: Alaska (39
percent or 13/33); Eastern Woodlands (74 percent or 28/38); Northern
Plains (85 percent or 17/20); Northwest (79 percent or 15/19);
Southern Plains (39 percent or 13/33); and Southwest (54 percent or
38/71).
[20] The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $510
million in funding for NAHASDA. Half of the funds were awarded to
fiscal year 2008 grantees in formula grants based on 2008 allocation
inputs. The other half was made available through competitive grants.
[21] Approximately 37 percent of the LIHTC projects HUD reported were
placed into service between 1995 and 2006 had 21 to 50 units; 22
percent had 51 to 99 units; and 24 percent had 100 or more units.
[22] GAO, Native American Housing: Homeownership Opportunities on
Trust Lands Are Limited, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-98-49] (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
24, 1998).
[23] Individual tribal members can only apply for Section 184 loans.
[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-98-49].
[25] The regulations, as negotiated, limit planning and administrative
expenses to 20 percent of a grantee's annual grant amount. Grantees
must receive approval from HUD when those expenses are expected to
exceed 20 percent of their annual grant amount.
[26] Grantees we interviewed described land as not buildable if it
included flood plains or hillside, or if it was near water with high
mineral content.
[27] NAHASDA was amended in October 2008 by Pub. L. No. 110-411 to
allow for the operation and maintenance of NAHASDA units as a housing
management service and not as a model activity, which required
approval from HUD.
[28] NAHASDA was amended in October 2008 by Pub. L. No. 110-411 to
authorize a demonstration loan guarantee program for community
development projects. HUD officials told us that this legislation did
not impact tribes' ability to use the IHBG or the Title VI program for
housing-related infrastructure development.
[29] National American Indian Housing Council, Building the Framework:
Housing Infrastructure Development in Indian Country (2003).
[30] For many years, IHS has been statutorily precluded from directly
funding the construction of sanitation facilities for HUD-funded
homes. Prior to NAHASDA, HUD officials said that they worked with IHS
to develop sanitation facilities for HUD-funded housing and
coordinated the necessary payments to IHS. Now, tribes are responsible
for planning their own housing development and can obtain technical
assistance services from IHS and reimburse IHS for any construction
costs from their IHBG funds or other sources.
[31] Federal Infrastructure Task Force Access Subgroup, Meeting the
Access Goal: Strategies for Increasing Access to Safe Drinking Water
and Wastewater Treatment to American Indian and Alaska Native Homes
(March 2008).
[32] HUD reported 359 recipients of NAHASDA grants for fiscal year
2008. We later adjusted the number we surveyed to 351 because at the
time of our survey, 8 recipients were represented by umbrella TDHEs
that were already part of our survey population.
[33] For additional information on the history of the dispute, see
Yule Kim and M. Maureen Murphy, The Cherokee Freedmen Dispute: Legal
Background, Analysis, and Proposed Legislation, Congressional Research
Service Report for Congress, RL34321 (Washington, D.C., Jan. 14, 2009).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: